
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 


Shelf 


Wn 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 













r 











u 


4 































- 

, * 









f 
















* 


♦ 








' 


















BEHOLD THE LAP OF GOD! 


The Two Testaments. 


V 



BY HL R. WITHERS, D.D., 

Of the LittAs Hock Conference. 



“Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal 
life: and they are they which testify of me.” — Jcsius. 


Printed for the Author. 
Publishing House of the M. E. Church, South. 
J. D. Barbee, Agent, Nashville, Tenn. 
1889. 


tX 



Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 18S9, 
By II It. Withers, 

in the Ofliee of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 


The Library 
oe Congress 

WASHINGTON 







DEDICATION, 


This book is lovingly dedicated to the memory of my sainted 
father and mother, Rev. John Withers and Mary Bowen With- 
ers, who were born and brought up in the city of Charleston. 
Trained from infancy in the ritualistic faith of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church, they maintained a beautiful exterior of piety 
while the soul was a stranger to the higher spiritualities of the 
gospel till a Methodist preacher, whom they heard for the pur- 
pose of ridiculing, thrust the Divine lance into their hearts. They 
became Methodists. They erected an altar of prayer in the fam- 
ily. At that altar this writer was trained. There is no incident 
of memory I cherish so highly as those venerable forms in song 
and prayer before the holy family altar. I seem to hear them 
now, and see them bowed in the midst of a group of loving, obe- 
dient children. Their songs have ceased now. Their prayers 
are hushed. Long years ago, while this writer was absent trying 
to preach, their lights burned low to the flickering taper, and 
gently went out in the shades of death, in old and honored age. 
In Southern Arkansas, under modest shafts of marble, side by 
side they sleep. Many children and grandchildren nestle in 
their arms in the same shaded plat. It is a silent spot — a family 
grave-yard. Tall pines stand sentry on the outskirts of the little 
garden. They sing a low, sad strain that harmonizes strangely 
with the joyful sorrows I feel when standing or praying among 
those tombs. They sleep now and rest from their labor, but their 
works do follow them. Next to Jesus I am most indebted to my 
parents for my soul’s peace which I now enjoy in the holy bap- 
tism of the new and ever-living covenant. H. R. Withers. 

Hot Springs, Ark., January, 1889, (3) 





PREFACE. 


It will be assumed in these pages that the atonement was in 
the death of the Lord Jesus Christ; that before his death atone- 
ment was only promised, and was therefore incomplete till the 
death actually occurred; that, though incomplete, it was not whol- 
ly ineffectual, for the promise of it, though not equivalent to the 
actual death, was sufficient for a provisional state of grace; 
that during this provisional state of grace revelation was im- 
perfect and proceeded through the ages with a gradual develop- 
ment. The first stage of revelation was that of promises, and 
these were dim, consisting often in symbols whose spiritual sig- 
nificance was unknown to the worshipers of that day. The 
second stage of revelation was of law — rules of action. The third 
was of advanced prophecy relating to the coming of Christ and 
the spiritual glory of the Church. The fourth and last stage was 
the revelation of the very nature of God himself to the conscious- 
ness of the true Christian believer’s heart, a moral change wrought 
in man by the Holy Ghost through faith in the risen Son of God ; 
in other words, that Jesus was the revelation of God in the flesh 
of man. As the prophets had heretofore revealed God’s will, so 
Christ now reveals God’s nature to us, and thus becomes the last 
link in the long and gradual chain of revelation to man, and is 
the crowning glory of the system of divine revelation to man 
while in this body. And this i3 the new testament and covenant 
of grace. 

It will be assumed that pending the promise of the Son of God 
as a sacrifice for sin, and before the incarnation and death, a 
covenant of works was established between God and the elect 
nation of Israel, which covenant assumed the form of a testament 
in Moses ; that the same covenant was made with Abraham, which 
contained a promise that a covenant would be established in 
his seed, which would be purely spiritual; and that this promise 
was fulfilled in Christ — a covenant of grace with Abraham’s heirs 
by faith. 


( 5 ) 


6 


Preface. 


It will be further assumed that no provision for the immediate 
and final salvation of man was made till made and wrought 
out in the actual death of our Lord Jesus Christ; that the patri- 
archs and Jews were elected to salvation if obedient when they 
died, but did not enter into the possession of the final grace of 
salvation till after the crucifixion of Jesus. I will attempt to 
show that God’s government of man before Jesus was incarnated 
and died was in the nature of civil government, with rewards 
and penalties for this life only, but that it was a continued act 
of preparation for the mediatorial government of Christ, which 
would be fully inaugurated at his coming and resurrection. 
That God did not attempt to save man spiritually before Christ 
further than to educate the world for the reception of Christ 
when he should appear ; that God saves mankind in Christ only, 
and that not until after his great sacrifice was m^de ; that those 
who died before Christ came, and had been obedient, were 
elected to enjoy salvation after Jesus had finished the redeeming 
process. Wild as this scheme may appear at first view, the 
the reader will think better of it after carefully reading the 
arguments set forth in this book. The view's herein set forth 
interfere with no orthodox doctrine, however cardinal or rad- 
ical it may be. I differ w T ith the current view r s only in the 
method of stating some doctrines held by the Church. 

The views of theology to be set out in this book are not 
Rocinian, Arian, or Pelagian, nor do they coincide with Baptist, 
Campbellite, or Roman Catholic. They are in strict accord 
with Methodism except in the mode of statement and except, 
perhaps, as to the condition of the holy dead who died before 
Christ. Methodism ha3 no authorized utterance on that sub- 
ject. 

If the same God has always held the reins of government, 
why do v r e have two testaments? Why should one not be suffi- 
cient? Why should we have two covenants, as set forth in the 
Epistle to the Hebrews? Why should there be such difference 
in the mode of divine government before and after Christ? 
How could Abraham be so eminent as a servant and friend of 
God, and yet have a plurality of wives and concubines, wffiile 
Christians of the New Testament are forbidden such practice? 
Why is the least in the kingdom of heaven greater than John, 
while he was greater than all his predecessors? These, with 


Preface. 


7 


many other questions, demand answers. The attempt to answer 
has produced this book. 

Dickens says unwritten books are the best. It may be so with 
mine. Yet if none should have been written, there would be no 
good books. The world must bear the infliction ol the bad, 
with the chance of getting the good. If this work should be the 
means of doing good, I am content, though it fails of general 
recognition. 

The study of the subject herein treated has been a blessing 
to the writer. It has brought him nearer to God and Jesus the 
Saviour. It has brought out the doctrine of the Holy Ghost in 
a clear form, and placed the writer in readiness to receive his 
baptism as never before. The atonement and the Holy Ghost 
as a sanctifier of human nature are better seen and realized than 
by any other view. Outward holiness, a legal religion, intellect- 
ual piety, were never so clearly distinguished from that state of 
religion called “ the kingdom of heaven” as by means of this 
study. 

Many dark passages of Scripture have become easy and lu- 
minous, and all the holy doctrines of orthodoxy are sustained 
and strengthened, however much the process differs from the 
usual methods of theologians. It is often objected that one 
who has a theory to support will wrest scriptures and force them 
into the service of such theory. No doubt this is true of some; 
but if it be true of all, then there must be no theories at all. 
And what would a Church be without a theory? Speculative 
theologians and philosophers have disgusted sober thinkers with 
their fanciful systems of thought, and now those sober thinkers, 
in revolt from such flimsiness, become flimsy themselves when 
they reject an argument only because it supports a theory that 
is new to them. Theories are God’s work. Correct theories, like 
the principles of mathematics, were laid by the divine mind in 
nature to be studied and developed by man. Get a correct the- 
ory of any thing, and you are walking in a path hewed out by 
the hand of God before “the morning stars sang together.” 

The theory of the covenants, as set out in this book, would be 
readily received by non-Calvinistic Christians if it did not de- 
fer redemption to the last testament and make that testament 
non-effective till after the blood of the Saviour was really shed. 
So deeply is the Calvinistic theory fastened in the public mind 

i 


8 


Preface. 


that all Christendom accepts without demurrer the assumption 
that Christs atonement was perfect before he died, at the same 
time affirming that his death was essential to the atonement. The 
propositions are contradictory and utterly irreconcilable. The 
foreknowledge and power of Cod are invoked to harmonize 
the variance, and just there Arminianism makes a frenzied and 
helpless plunge into the fathomless abyss of Calvinism. I do 
not make the leap, but try to walk in a straight path by clinging 
to the covenants and testaments in the order of their arrange- 
ment by the divine Builder of the system of salvation. 

I know there are difficulties in the way of the theory of this 
book, but they are more easily removed than those on the other 
side. He is a freshman indeed who expects every one to in- 
dorse his views. Nothing could be written that would not be 
criticised adversely. I have written in obedience to conscience. 
My hope is to accomplish good by awakening thought and draw- 
ing out stronger writers. I therefore commit my work to God, 
and rest in faith. 

I am far from being satisfied with the arrangement and plan 
of this work. It lacks system, and is not sufficiently copious in 
some respects, while in others it is too much so, and there is too 
much repetition ; but I am in charge of a Church whose demand 
on my time is unusually great. It is a great national sanitarium 
—the city of Hot Springs, in Arkansas. Invalids from the ends 
of earth are here, and many of them require pastoral attention. 
This precludes literary labor. The Author. 


CONTENTS 


Chapter I. page 

The Necessity for Redemption 11 

Chapter II. 

The Real Deliverer 18 

Chapter III. 

The Covenants 24 

Chapter IV. 

A Covenantal Testament 36 

Chapter V. 

Israel in Covenant 46 

Chapter VI. 

The True Theory of the Covenants and Testaments 52 

Chapter VII. 

Nature of the First Covenant 59 

Chapter VIII. 

Nature of the First Covenant (Continued) 67 

Chapter IX. 

Nature of the Second Covenant, or a New and Living Way. 76 
Chapter X. 

Mr. Wesley’s Views 83 

Chapter XI. 

Temptations of Christ 89 

Chapter XII. 

The Epistle to the Hebrews 99 

Chapter XIII. 

Paul’s Retrospect 194 

Chapter XIV. 

Taul’s Retrospect (Continued) Ill 

Chapter XV. 

Grace vs. Law 118 

Chapter XVI. 

Objections 122 

(9) 


10 


Contents. 


Chapter XVII. rA(!E 

Imputed Righteousness 130 

Chapter XVIII. 

A Great Legal Hiatus 141 

Chapter XIX. 

The Old School-master 150 

Chapter XX. 

A Case of Ancient Piety on the Border Line 103 

Chapter XXI. 

The Faith of Abraham 171 

Chapter XXII. 

A Man of God Learning 179 

Chapter XXIII. 

The Best Example of Ancient Piety 184 

Chapter XXIV. 

Faith 197 

Chapter XXV. 

Ezekiel’s Vision 203 

Chapter XXVI. 

John the Baptist 216 

Chapter XXVII. 

The Apostle Peter 226 

Chapter XXVIII. 

Imprisoned Spirits 231 

Chapter XXIX. 

The Skin Bottles of Moses and the Elders. 238 

Chapter XXX. 

Cain and Abel 243 

Chapter XXXI. 

Campbell ism 254 

Chapter XXXII. 

Election 258 

Chapter XXXIII. 

Mary 274 

Chapter XXXIV. 

Infant Baptism 279 

Chapter XXXV. 

A Summary View 290 


BEHOLD THE LAMB OF GOD! 


CHAPTER I, 

The Necessity for Redemption. 

“ Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, for- 
nications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.” (Matt. xv. 19.) 

B Y the fall Adam’s nature was so corrupted as 
to give it a strong bias to iniquity. It was li- 
able before, but evil desire was not then an element 
of liability, as it now is. It is now inclined to evil, 
and that continually. By evil I do not mean nat- 
ural and innocent dispositions, such as appetite for 
food, but such, for instance, as covetousness and 
lust and pride and selfishness. It is this that 
makes redemption necessary. If this evil nature 
did not occur by the fall, we have no solution for 
the commonest phenomenon of daily life. Man 
sins; something inclines him to do so. That some- 
thing is the question of philosophy. What is it? 
Whence came it ? 

These questions are answered in three ways. 
First, the existence of sin is denied. Second, it is 
natural. Third, the disposition to sin is inherited 
from Adam. The first answer is infidelity; the sec- 
ond is evasive; the third is the only real answer. 

Depravity is the cause of much controversy among 
Christians, but the controversy is chiefly about words 

(ID 


12 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


rather than the thing itself. “Total” is the trouble- 
some word. Total depravity in Arminian theology 
means only inclination to sin — to commit acts that 
are sinful — and all admit that such inclination does 
exist. Therefore the controversy is more of words 
than of facts. The bias to sin is complete. It is 
not partly so; it is so in fact. Nevertheless the en- 
lightening grace of God rests on the mind, and 
counter desires are awakened. 

. This was the condition of Adam’s nature after he 
sinned, and in this dreadful condition it was trans- 
missible. Sin therefore, in the form of depravity, is 
hereditary. It does not render every one guilty. 
Voluntary acquiescence in depraved desires makes 
guilt. Adam’s spiritual death, which is depravity 
but not his guilt, is transmissible, and that death 
would have been eternal if Christ had not died. 
Jesus’ death takes away unconditionally all original 
guilt which belonged only to our first parents, but 
the wound of sin remains. 

It was the purpose of God at the fall of Adam to 
institute a plan by which man is not only pardoned 
from actual sin, but is also redeemed from his inher- 
ited depravity, and all the wounds of original sin 
healed. To do this involves a restoration of man 
to his spiritual status. Pardon cannot do that. The 
spirit that fled man’s nature when sin entered must 
return to it, and this is more than pardon. God 
must re-inhabit man. Man must again become the 
temple of God, as he was before the fall. This in- 
volves a change in the moral nature. The spirit of 
man must be renewed. This renewal or repairing of 


The Necessity for Redemption. 


13 


man’s fallen nature is called salvation. To accom- 
plish this Jesus was promised, and it was essential 
that he should die to accomplish it. Why his death 
should be a necessity is a branch of the subject not 
now necessary to be discussed. But we are not left 
in doubt as to the fact. lie must die; and that 
death, with his life and resurrection, is to be the 
“procuring” cause of salvation. It is needless to 
distinguish between “ originating ” and “procuring 
causes” in this discussion; whatever the quality of 
the cause, Jesus’ death is by all orthodox Christians 
admitted to be the cause. But the death of Jesus 
is deferred to a late period in time; therefore, since 
the effect cannot precede the cause, salvation cannot 
precede the death of Jesus. A mere pardon might 
exist before Jesus’ death, but salvation could not. 
The promise of Jesus is not held to be the cause; it 
is his actual death. Wherefore, to meet the emer- 
gency of the case before the death of Jesus, a pro- 
visional plan is suggested and originated and set 
out in the old scriptures, based on the promised 
Christ, and is a temporary provision for salvation till 
the perfect comes. ^ This is the first volume of the 
book of salvation, the first covenant and testament. 

To deliver man from spiritual death is salvation; 
sanctification in the New Testament accomplishes 
this, and qualifies man for holy living. This is the 
object of Jesus’ mission. But sanctification is the 
work of the Spirit. The death of Jesus is the cause 
of the Spirit’s work. If the Spirit does the work 
before Jesus dies, the effect exists without a cause, 
and Jesus’ death is not the cause of redemption. 


14 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


Hence we see that God’s government of men before 
Christ came is different from his government since. 
But the difference is not that of antagonism; it is 
only that of perfection as compared with prepara- 
tory measures. We also see that all types existed 
before Jesus, and not after; that Church methods of 
antiquity are unsuited to the Church at present; 
that covenants have succeeded each other — the first 
followed by the second; Testaments have succeeded 
each other — the Old and the New; that Moses was 
the mediator of the Old, and Christ of the New; 
that Moses dedicated his with the blood of beasts, 
and Christ dedicated his with his own blood; that 
however good the blood of Abel’s sacrifice, “ the 
blood of Christ speaketh better things.” We also 
see that the people of God under the first were 
called servants, but under the second they are sons 
— children of God. This is the difference between 
mere pardon and salvation. He gives power to 
them that believe to become the sons of God. The 
Church is more active because more spiritual under 
the second covenant than under the first. It was 
local and unprogressive under the first; it is uni- 
versal and aggressive under the second. Under the 
first worshipers sought the mediation of sacrifices 
and priests; under the second they go direct to Je- 
sus, and without any sacrifice or priest, save Jesus 
only, find and enjoy the presence of God. 

If God had pardoned Adam without a redeeming 
process by which the moral nature might be re- 
stored to harmony with God, it would not have 
changed the tendency of nature. Therefore, to save 


The Necessity for Redemption. 


15 


man from the power of this depravity, something 
more must he done than merely to forgive. 

Before Adam fell he was holy. Every thing that 
God could have required of him by specific demands 
of law was performed without any demand what- 
ever. Every thing he did or had any inclination to 
do was innocent. Thus was the law written in his 
heart. His very nature was responsive to every 
demand that the most exacting law could have 
made. But he was man. As such his information 
wasTimited. A tree was in the garden whose fruit 
it was not proper that he should eat; wherefore, by 
way of instruction in the nature of a command- 
ment, he was forbidden the use of that tree. From 
causes wholly external to himself, but operating 
through the natural channel of his mind, he ate and 
sinned, and his spiritual nature was changed. It is 
called death.. It was a spiritual death. In it are 
the germs of physical and eternal death. But the 
immediate effect of that sin was spiritual death. 
Spiritual death is difficult to describe. One who 
has been quickened into spiritual life can readily 
understand it. Experience comes to the relief of 
one’s understanding, but to one who has inherited 
that spiritual death, and has not been quickened 
into life, it is difficult to so explain as to make it 
clear. Terms have different shades of meaning as 
they are explained by different experiences. To 
one who never feared it would be difficult to de- 
scribe fear. To one who never had eyes light could 
not be described. To one who does not enjoy spir- 
itual life it cannot be explained. 


16 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


Adam's spiritual death was constitutional, and 
that because of the absence of God’s Spirit. It did 
not directly affect the mental or physical organism; 
it only affected the moral, with resulting effects 
on mind and body. But it is this death, with the 
possible consequences, that has ever interested Deity 
in the affairs of man. To merely pardon Adam 
would no more restore impaired moral nature than 
the Governor’s pardon would make the thief hon- 
est. This impaired moral nature, the direct result 
of Adam’s sin, is so disastrous and in such direct 
antagonism to good moral government, and is so 
radically at enmity with the nature of God, that it 
is called sin, although it may not be the act of per- 
sonal volition in Adam’s posterity. It is simply a 
state of sinful being, by nature antagonistic to pure 
life, and is therefore a state of sin, but not a state of 
guilt. So the apostle calls it “ the carnal mind,” and 
declares that “it is enmity against God” and not 
only not subject to God’s law, “ but cannot become 
so.” Observe that he does not say it is at enmity, 
which would allow it to be something that, under 
certain circumstances, might be good, but just now is 
in this state of enmity. As if two gentlemen other- 
wise good and kind, for some real or fancied griev- 
ance, fall out and are at enmity with each other. 
The cause of enmity may be removed and the com- 
batants become friends again. This is not the case 
with sin that dwells in human depravity. It is en- 
mity itself against God. It is changeless. It is 
death — a moral poison. When it ceases to be en- 
mity it ceases to be any thing. The baptism of the 


The Necessity for Redemption. 


17 


Holy Ghost is its only antidote. To save man from 
this carnality is redemption, so far as this mortal 
life is concerned; it will be finished in the resur- 
rection. And the provision for this redemption is 
in the blood of Jesus Christ under the New Testa- 
ment. 

2 


CHAPTER II. 


The Real Deliverer. 

“O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the 
body of this death?” — Paul . 

f TIE object of this book is to trace the develop- 



JL ment of God’s design in the work of human 
redemption. In a former chapter we have seen the 
necessity for such redemption. Now let us observe 
the methods of its execution. This is best per- 
formed by following the order of development as 
laid down in the Bible. 

The work appears to be divided into three great 
epochs. The first is that of promise only. From 
Adam to Abraham something was promised to 
man. In Abraham the promise was somewhat ex- 
alted in that it took the form of a covenant, and en- 
tered on a distinct epoch. From Abraham to all 
future generations the covenant era extends. But 
we now observe that the covenant era is itself di- 
vided into two distinct periods, called the first and 
second covenants. So that we have an era of prom- 
ise only, and one called the first covenant, and a 
third called the second covenant or testament. 

Covenant and promise are not antagonistic. A 
promise is the act of one; a covenant is the act of 
two or more. Mutuality is an element of cove- 
nants, but is not essential to a promise. Jesus is 
the subject of the promise and the covenants. 


( 18 ) 


The Real Deliverer. 


19 


As between Jesus and the Father there is no cov- 
enant except that which exists in pure speculation, 
but as between the Trinity and man there is a prom- 
ise. God promised his Son to the world. 

But little is known of the Christian system when 
it existed in the era of promise only, except that 
Jesus was promised, and even this was couched in 
language so shadowy as to darken its true meaning 
and involve it in great obscurity. Its first appear- 
ance to Adam after the fall is clothed in these mys- 
tical but oft-quoted words: “ It shall bruise thy head, 
and thou shalt bruise his heel.” 

In Abraham the promise of Jesus was renewed, 
made more distinct, and his birth restricted to the 
line of that patriarch’s blood. This restriction is 
the ground of the Abrahamic covenant. Hereto- 
fore Jesus existed only in promise except as the un- 
incarnated Word, and that promise was general to 
the whole race, and no one was required to agree to 
any thing except to obey such special commands as 
should be given. Any views contrary to this are con- 
jectural, not scriptural. But to limit the honor of 
Christ’s nativity to a particular family God imposed 
conditions, and Abraham accepted them, and so en- 
tered into covenant relation to God respecting the 
nativity of the coming Christ. This gave the an- 
cient promise a temporal complexion, and was the 
origin of its legal features and covenantal form as 
seen in Genesis xvii. 1-12. This was afterward 
brought out with more distinctness in detail and 
established by Moses with a system of laws and 
ritual added. It assumed the form of a Testament 


20 


Behold the Lamb of God ! 


under Moses — a formal announcement of the divine 
will dedicated in blood. In Adam it was promise; 
in Abraham, covenant; in Moses, testament; and as 
a testament was duly dedicated in the blood of 
beasts at Sinai with Moses as mediator. 

The covenants have been divided into the first 
and the second. The first was made with Abraham 
and confirmed with Moses. The second was made 
between Christ and all who should believe on him 
(Gal. iii. 12-14), and was in its original form only a 
promise to become a covenant in the coming Jesus 
of the secoud testament. The first was to endure till 
the second was dedicated, and this dedication oc- 
curred at the death of Christ and became a testament 
in the blood of Jesus (Ileb. xix. 15-16). The first 
covenant contained two distinct features — one secu- 
lar and the other spiritual. Both features were mat- 
ters of promise only, but the secular was to be re- 
alized first, and the spiritual last and in a very 
distant day. The secular promises were realized 
in the birth of Isaac and the settlement of Canaan 
by the descendants of Jacob. The spiritual was 
realized in the birth, crucifixion, and resurrec- 
tion of Jesus, and the glory which followed these 
events. 

The second covenant was purely spiritual, having 
no admixture of carnal elements. It is the fulfill- 
ment of the spiritual promise of the first covenant. 
It developed in Christ at his coming. It is the suc- 
cessor of the first covenant. See Hebrews viii. 7-9. 
The first was provisional and temporary — a school- 
master having charge of religion in its minority. 


The Beal Deliverer. 


21 


So the history of God’s dealing with man con- 
sists of a great promise and its fulfillment, and such 
covenants, with institutions, formula, and ceremo- 
nies, as were needful to the history and development 
of that promise. 

To make man pure and God-like, the promise of 
Christ was a necessity; to develop the promise, cov- 
enants were needed; to develop the covenants, a 
nation like Israel was also a necessity. Jesus is the 
spirit of true religion. Promises and covenants — 
with attending rites, ceremonies, and institutions — 
were but the form in which this spirit naturally 
clothed itself iu the process of development. 

I do not undertake in this discussion to follow 
all lateral lines of development. My object is to 
trace the outline of the plan. With the numerous 
minor covenants and promises mentioned in script- 
ure I have little to do. High above these I find 
the promise and the covenants numbered one and 
two, looming up like suns in their systems, and 
around which many lights of lesser magnitude re- 
volve. 

I have sought in vain for the covenant with 
Adam made prior to his fall, so celebrated in the 
polemics of the Fathers, from which flows a stream 
of error hurtful to the interests of our holy Zion. 
If any were made with Adam, it was one of death 
and not of life. “ 13o this and live ” is not in it, but 
“Do this and die ” is very conspicuous. 

Since the Bible is a record of God’s work in a 
plan of redemption, every thing in it challenges my 
attention and interest. I am compelled to inquire 


22 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


the meaning of its great epochs — why God has so 
strangely divided history by such events as those in 
the lives of Abraham, Moses, Adam, Noah, and Jesus. 
There are those who say that God has just as strange- 
ly marked the dispensations of Luther, Calvin, and 
Wesley as those of Abraham, Sinai, and Calvary. 
Such talk seems idle. Did God in any wise change 
his method of governing in religious matters in the 
case of Luther, Wesley, or Asbury? Yet who can 
fail to see radical changes by way of improved 
methods, marking the epochs in the patriarchal 
ages, and a wonderful change after the resurrection 
of Jesus? 

That the practice of the Church differed in the 
times of Luther, Wesley, and Irenseusno one doubts, 
but did God change his rule? That is the question. 
The question is not what Luther, Wesley, or any 
other man may do, but what has God done? Luther 
changed no law or method of God; he only sought 
to know what God required, to know what the 
Bible taught. But Moses gave new and greater 
laws, while Jesus fulfilled all and erected man into 
a new creature. Does the reader see no difference 
in the dispensations of Moses, Abraham, Jesus, 
Wesley, and Luther? In Colossians i. 25-27 Baul 
claims to be a minister “according to the dispensa- 
tion of God which is given to me for you, to fulfill 
the word of God; even the mystery which hath been 
hid from ages and from generations, but now is 
made manifest to his saints: to whom God would 
make known what is the riches of the glory of this 
mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in 


The Real Deliverer. 


23 


you, the hope of glory.” The glory of this mys- 
tery which was hid from former ages is “Christ 
in you.” Then he was not in them as in us. 
And this is certainly ground for a new “dispen- 
sation.” 


CHAPTER III. 


The Covenants. 

B EFORE proceeding farther it is well perhaps 
to take a brief view of the covenants as un- 
derstood and explained by the two great schools of 
orthodoxy known as Calvinism and Arminianism. 
A history of these theories is not needed here; a 
mere glance at the points of difference is sufficient 
for the purpose of the present discussion. By com- 
mon consent a covenant called the “covenant of 
redemption and grace’’ is held to be the first. It is 
claimed by both schools to have been made in the 
council of the Holy Trinity, between the Father 
and the Son ages before the earth was made, in be- 
half of elect sinners on Avhom grace and glory were 
settled forever. Calvinists hold this settlement of 
grace on elect sinners to he unconditional, while Ar- 
minians hold it to be conditional as to adults on the 
sinnor’s faith in Jesus Christ. The two schools hold 
that a covenant was also made with Adam in Eden, 
which they agree in calling a “covenant of works” 
as distinguished from the so-called eternal covenant 
of grace in Jesus Christ, the motto of which is: 
“Do this, and live.” Calvinists hold that the cov- 
enants with Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David are 
minor covenants, and are intended to be only typ- 
ical of the great covenant of grace in Christ. But 
( 24 ) 


The Covenants. 


25 


Arminians believe that the covenant with Abraham 
was a revelation of the eternal covenant of grace 
and is identical with it, and that the covenant of 
Moses is minor, temporary, and transitory. They 
further hold that the covenant with David is a re- 
statement of the Abrahamic or the eternal covenant 
with the Son of God. Now, with these principal 
points of agreement and disagreement between the 
great parties to the discussion set before my read- 
ers, we may be able to see that some compromise 
has been made, and that the advantage in the com- 
promise is rather with the Calvinists. Neither 
school pretends to explain how a type and the thing 
typified can exist at one and the same time. I 
think it would have been more scriptural, and there- 
fore more consistent, if Arminians had denied to- 
tallv any covenant of eternal grace made with the 
Son in the secret council of the Trinity in the ages 
before the earth was created. For, first, the mean- 
ing of the word covenant is too indefinite as used 
in Scripture to make any opinion we may form of 
it the ground of such stupendous consequences as 
are involved in the doctrine. That word is used in 
the sense of a conditional promise and of an uncon- 
ditional promise, of a conditional gift and an uncon- 
ditional gift, of blessings to be sought and blessings 
not to be sought. It has a present historic mean- 
ing and it has a future prophetic meaning. Besides 
all this there is no scripture that gives it necessa- 
rily the hard and arbitrary character as presented 
in the view of a thoroughly organized and finished 
system in the ages previous to our earth. While 


26 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


the Arminian view of the question does indeed 
soften the doctrine by making man responsible in 
accepting or rejecting Christ, still the difficulty is 
only removed one degree; it is not abolished. For 
while the Calvinistic theory ignores human agency 
in all humanity, the Arminian theory ignores it in 
Jesus Christ, who is not only human, but is the sec- 
ond federal head of the race. If Jesus as man had 
no discretion, was not an agent — had not freedom of 
will to do good or evil — he was not properly human, 
and a poor specimen of our race. He was not a 
second Adam, and was not really the subject of 
temptation. 

It is evident to my mind that those passages 
which they say prove the existence of this pre-mu n- 
dane covenant do not refer to covenants in any 
sense known to jurisprudence, but to a promise 
made, which, however, was not made till there was 
a man to make it to, and was only a promise with 
the implied condition of faithfulness on the part of 
both Christ and man. 

Let us now examine the principal texts relied on. 
The eighty-ninth Psalm is a stronghold. The third 
and fourth verses declare: “I have made a covenant 
with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my serv- 
ant, Thy seed will I establish forever, and build up 
• thy throne to all generations.” This is the proof of 
the covenant and its effect on the throne of Jesus 
Christ, who is supposed to be here called David. 
.But this is no proof of any previous divine council in 
which a covenant is made between the Father and the 
Son before the earth was. This covenant was made 


'The. Covenants. 


27 


with David the son of Jesse, and had prophetic refer- 
ence to the grace which God would bestow upon the 
kingdom of the coming Son of God. But we are 
referred to certain New Testament texts to prove 
the pre-existence of the covenant. The follow- 
ing is one of the best samples (Eph. i. 4), and is 
relied on: “According as he hath chosen us in him, 
before the foundation of the world,” etc. But kos- 
mos , which is the governing term of that text, is 
entirely too variable in its definition to be a satis- 
factory foundation for a scheme so momentous. 
Who can tell with absolute certainty what world 
Paul is speaking of? That word sometimes means 
society, the Gentile world, the world before the 
flood, or the world after the flood. It is some- 
times used in a sense analogous to dispensation, 
and sometimes to ornament, order, embellishment. 
Yet with this variable character we are now to 
be shut down to a particular sense unknown to 
any standard definition in order to prove that God 
had from all eternity 'established a covenant be- 
tween Father and Son,' which would, in its very 
nature, cut away all agency and responsibility both 
in mankind and in the “Son of man.” It never 
means earth in the geological sense. Besides, it 
proves no agreement between the Father and Son, 
nor does it even refer to such agreement. 

Arminianism entangles itself with Calvinism 
by admitting this imaginary covenant in the pre- 
mundane council of the Trinity in this: They re- 
gard this supposed covenant to have been made 
with the Logos in the Trinity, and that therefore 


28 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


the scheme of atonement and redemption became 
then and there a completed fact; that nothing was 
wanting to put it into vigorous exercise but the 
presence of a sinner. But it must be obvious that, 
so far as divine knowledge is concerned, the sinner 
was just as much present as was the crucified Son; 
and when this is admitted there is no trouble in 
admitting that the sanctifying Spirit of God was 
also present, actually sanctifying the redeemed sin- 
ner. Thus do we find our Arminianism heading 
its way back into the very center of Calvinism. A 
perfect atonement carries with it a perfect redemp- 
tion and system of salvation. If such atonement 
existed before the earth was, then did redemption 
and salvation also exist; so the Church; so every 
thing that does exist, and Calvinism is true. Why 
talk about the condition of faith? Faith was as 
mirch present at the date of that council as the 
sinner was, as the “seed,” or the human son of 
Mary. 

This so-called covenant with Christ is never 
called “first” in the Scriptures, because as a cove- 
nant it was not first. As a 'promise it was first, but 
at the time it was promised it contained no cove- 
nant features at all, and w^as not in force even as a 
promise till Adam sinned. There is not one pas- 
sage of Scripture that proves any covenant action 
in the secret councils of the Trinity before the 
world was. “He was delivered by the determinate 
council and foreknowledge of God.” But this coun- 
cil action related to the delivery of Christ into this 
world, and not to an agreement between the par- 


The Covenants. 


29 


ties of the supposed covenant. It was simply de- 
termined in the council of the Trinity that Jesus 
Christ should be born or delivered into this world. 
“Ye have taken and by wicked hands crucified” 
shows the agency of man. Covenants determine 
nothing unconditionally. Conditions are the very 
essence of a genuine covenant. But this delivery 
of Christ into the world was unconditional. His 
crucifixion was conditional on his own will and 
those “ wicked hands.” When this was determined 
in the divine council is not stated. By the uncon- 
ditional character of this delivery we know it was 
not of any covenant. But because it was so deter- 
mined in this divine council God made promise of 
it. As a covenant it is second and last, and is rep- 
resented always as made with man — either the house 
of Israel or the seed of Abraham — in which cove- 
nant Christ is recognized as Mediator. 

Dr. Bledsoe says: “The plan of redemption was 
not an after-thought designed to remedy an evil 
which the eye of Omniscience had not seen; it 
was formed in the council of Infinite Wisdom long 
before the foundations of the world were laid.” I 
know not what was formed in that council except 
as revelation discloses it. Speculative theology 
knows a great deal more than the Bible, and does 
not hesitate to declare it. Viewed in one aspect, 
nothing can be an after thought with God. From 
the point of knowledge considered as an attribute 
of God, there can be no such thing as fore or after 
knowledge or thought. This is a purely abstract 
idea of God. In this sense God is not yet revealed, 


80 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


and man knows nothing of him. When David and 
Paul glanced away from God's concrete relation to 
man, and caught but a glimpse of the abstract 
glory, they cried : “ His ways are too high for me, 
and his paths are past finding out.” God’s thoughts 
and knowledge, if they be u fore” or “after,” are 
reckoned as before or after some event connected 
with the history of man, and that event is the death 
of Jesus Christ. I have no objection to Dr. Bled- 
soe’s statement, provided “plan” is taken in the 
sense of something that relates to the future of man, 
and does not shut me up to the Calvinistic theory 
that a plan is equivalent to a consummated event. 

I want a consistent Arminianism, and not one 
that antagonizes Calvinism a part of the way, and 
then falls into line with it as gracefully as if born 
to the step. 

Where is that council of which Dr. Bledsoe 
speaks? What passage is relied on? It is won- 
derful with what unanimity the Christian world has 
accepted this theory, and that in the absence of all 
Scripture. Those texts that use the phrase “ founda- 
tion of the world ” are taken as proof of two distinct 
propositions: First, that something was promised 
before the earth was created; secondly, that be- 
cause something was promised before the earth was 
created, therefore there was a council in which the 
Father and Son mutually agreed on the atonement 
as a completed fact. But such texts do not sup- 
port either proposition. 

So far as God’s thoughts relate to man and time 
they fall under the same laws of chronology as do 


Ike Covenants. 


31 


all human events, lie organized earth and man, 
and placed them under the present environments 
of nature. He has limited our reasoning powers 
by this natural horizon. We have no means of 
entering into his councils before the foundation 
of the earth was laid except where he has specific- 
ally set it out. This he has not done. Those pas- 
sages that are claimed as referring to the “founda- 
tion ” and periods of time before the foundation of 
the world do not refer necessarily to the geological 
structure, hut rather to the orders of society in dif- 
ferent ages of the world. That Calvinistic theory 
of foreknowledge which compels the further theory 
of a perfected death and atonement before Jesus 
was born and before there was a man to be atoned 
for is fanciful in the highest degree. If their the- 
ory he true, an event has two distinct and directly 
opposite qualities. In the light of divine knowl- 
edge it is an actually existing fact, while in the light 
of nature it has no existence at all. As respects 
God, the event is a fact; as respects man, it is not a 
fact. So it is a fact and yet not a fact at one and 
the same time. This is something that the human 
mind has not the capacity to grasp. It may be true, 
but it is not a human truth, and therefore I have 
nothing to do with it. In human history a non- 
existing fact is nothing. What it may be in God’s 
history or in the fourth dimension of space, if such 
there be, I know not, for I cannot reason on the 
knowledge of God. It is beyond my orbit. God 
has not endowed man with a faculty sufiicient foi 
it, and therefore has not demanded it. The atone- 


82 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


ment of Christ is made to depend on his death; and, 
however it may have been in the knowledge and 
history of God, with man it did not exist till Pilate 
slew him on the cross. And this the Bible recog- 
nizes, and the plan of salvation was accommodated 
to suit the event, by the great historic division I 
have noted in former chapters. There are some 
who draw a distinction between certainty and lia- 
bility. That is correct ; but when the possibility of 
Jesus’ falling is denied because his death was cer- 
tain in the knowledge of Deity, that certainty is 
made to perform the function of a decree as far as 
Jesus’ death is concerned. 

If the plan of redemption were perfect, and a full 
salvation were tendered to man before the death 
and resurrection of Jesus Christ, then Socinians are 
correct. It is well known that Socinians deny 
the proper divinity of Christ. They believe that 
persons who obeyed God in all ages were finally 
saved at the time of their death, that Christ had 
not died in the early ages, that atonement had not 
been made, and that persons dying in the faith 
of God were saved without atonement except that 
in the blood of beasts; therefore, in their belief* 
Jesus was not a vicarious atonement for sin. They 
admit that God made a covenant of salvation, and 
that it has always been in force since men have 
been sinners, but they hold that the death of Jesus 
was only a ratification of God’s promise. That sal- 
vation was in the promise, and not in the death and 
resurrection of Jesus Christ. Calvinism covers the 
difficulty by the doctrine of election and reproba- 


The Covenants. 


33 


tion. But Arminians — what do we hold? Strange* 
ly enough, we too hold that the death of Jesus is 
only a sort of ratification of a scheme of redemp- 
tion that has been in full exercise since Adam fell. 
We certainly do not mean to assert any such thing, 
but all our theories logically lead to this view. 
Take a quotation from the “Old Man and the New: ” 
44 To Adam, the first man, after he had sinned, was 
given a full gospel. To him was made by God a 
full and complete revelation of the system and work 
of salvation — the God-man in his redemptive work, 
in his conflicts and triumphs was as clearly and 
beautifully present to Adam as to David and Dan- 
iel, as to Paul and Peter. ... To all God’s 
people in patriarchal and prophetic times was given 
a complete revelation of the whole system of re- 
demption.” Such declarations are startling. Yet 
this is the general view of the subject taken by Ar- 
minians of this day. This position is assumed to 
defeat the arguments of Arians drawn from the ap- 
parent insufficiency of the Old Testament. But 
when our authors come to consider the atonement di- 
rectly they declare that no one was ever saved with- 
out Jesus’ death; and when reminded that Jesus had 
not died in Adam’s day they reply: “True, he had 
not actually died; but he was promised, and that 
was sufficient because it Was equivalent to his 
death.” In such a view as this what is the actual 
death of Christ but a sort of ratification of a scheme 
of salvation already in full and perfect operation? 
Indeed, it brings It down directly to the view ex- 
pressed by Dr. Sykes, whom Dr. West quotes and 
3 


34 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


attempts to refute. Speaking of Christ’s offering, 
Dr. Sykes, a Unitarian, says: “To offer himself is 
not to present himself as an expiatory sacrifice to 
appease God, for God was already so far appeased 
as to send his Son into the world. There could be 
no need of reconciling God to man when he had al- 
ready shown his love to man so far as to send his 
Son to reconcile man to God.” And Dr. Taylor, 
another Socinian, said: u Christ is a means of cleans- 
ing us from sin.” There are many means of grace; 
Christ is only one of them. Men had always been 
saved by using the means of grace. Now that 
Christ had come, our facilities were somewhat in- 
creased. This is his view. This is the Socinian 
and Arian view. Now I submit that while our au- 
thors do not believe any such thing as that pre- 
sented by Sykes and Taylor, yet the theory we have 
of salvation before Christ came logically leads to 
this Arian view of redemption. These do not hold 
to depravity, and therefore man can of his own 
power wheel into line at any time without a vica- 
rious atonement and baptism of the Holy Ghost. 
What man needs, so far as this theory demands, is 
reformation of morals — not a constitutional recon- 
struction of the moral nature. In this view of the 
question of salvation man does not need the vica- 
rious offering of the Son of God; he only needs his 
heroic example as shown in his great life and suf- 
ferings. We as Arminians oppose Calvinism on the 
one side and Pelagianism on the other, holding that 
man is depraved and needs a moral reconstruction. 
We hold that the vicarious offering of Jesus Christ 


The Covenants. 


35 


and the reconstructing power of the Holy Ghost 
are essential to this work; yet we contend that all 
this was done long before that vicarious offering was 
made, and that the actual death and resurrection of 
Jesus did not do this, for it was done before his com- 
ing or suffering and death. What then did the com- 
ing and death do? They tell us that it only made 
“ manifest” that which was already a fact — an ac- 
complished fact. This theory, then, amounts to no 
more than the theory of Dr. Taylor. Ilis coming is 
“ only a means of grace,” a ratification of a previous- 
ly existing atonement. Things are only somewhat 
better now than before his coming because we have 
“ more light.” * It is not a fact that Jesus had made 
atonement before he came and died in any but a 
Calvinistic sense. God, who knows all things, knew 
it; and it must be a fact or he could not know it. 
And as God knew it, then it was always a fact — 
then Adam, Abel, Enoch, Abraham, and all that 
had it knew as much about it as we do; while this 
is rank Calvinism, it is also Methodism, if the “ Old 
Man and the New ” is to be taken as authoritative. 
I don’t know what God knows nor how God knows 
things; but I do know that, reasoning after the man- 
ner of man — and there is no other way for man to 
reason — Jesus had not died, and his death was not a 
fact till he died on the cross under the rule of Pilate. 
Talking about a fact that is not a fact is idle prat- 
ing to common human understanding. 


CHAPTER IV. 


A Covenantal Testament. 

NE may read tomes of books devoted to Bib- 



Vy Heal discussion, and come from the perusal 
still asking why Diathcke should be translated 
sometimes by the word “ testament ” and sometimes 
by the word “covenant.” Our translation may be 
a little loose at this point., The subject lies at the 
bottom of theology. The Scriptures cannot be 
rightly viewed without a right understanding of 
the testamentary idea thereof. It is rudimental — 
the alphabet of the theory of salvation. 

Diatheke means testament certainly, and there- 
fore testament is a correct translation; but if that 
be so, why should the term be translated covenant? 
I think of but one reason: There is a covenantal 
idea in the testaments of Scripture. And where 
this idea is more prominent we have “covenant” 
in the translation; where the testamentary idea 
overshadows the other we have “testament.” 

In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, at the institution 
of the Lord’s Supper, it is testamentary; so also in 
First and Second Corinthians. In all those places 
Diatheke is rendered “testament.” But in Gala- 
tians iii. 14 we have “covenant.” 

There need be no mutuality of obligation, and 
generally is none, in ti testament. A benefit is 


(30) 


A Covenant a l Testament. 


37 


given and made permanent by a will of the testa- 
tor, and that will is the testament. Jesus’ sacrifice 
by death is the principal feature of the divine testa- 
ment, and this without any mutuality of obligation 
on the part of the legatees under the will. “ God 
so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten 
Son.” Wherever this idea prevails in a passage 
the original is rendered u testament.” But the text 
just quoted is not finished; it concludes thus: “that 
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but 
have everlasting life.” Here is a covenant feature 
supervened upon the testamentary idea. A mutu- 
ality of obligation is created and recognized. A 
further benefit is set out in the will with a proviso 
attached, as if the instrument provided: (1) That 
Jesus Christ would die; and (2) that all mankind 
should find salvation from sin in that death, pro- 
vided they believe in him . The proviso is the cove- 
nant feature. 

In Galatians iii. II the writer is dwelling largely 
on the obligations devolved on sinners by the terms 
of this will, so much so as to carry the attention of 
our translators to the eovenantal feature, and they 
use the word covenant instead of testament. So 
also in Hebrews and in other places. 

Most writers regard the terms covenant and tes- 
tament as synonymous. They are not; but while 
they convey sharp distinctions in thought, they 
may, with this explanation, be used interchangea- 
bly. In a strictly forensic treatise they could never 
be used in that way. A covenant may exist with- 
out death, but a testament never. A promise may 


38 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


be an element of both covenants and testaments, 
and yet a promise may exist without either. The 
element of promise in a testament is exceedingly 
feeble. Indeed, it is questionable if promise is, 
strictly speaking, an element of a testament at all, 
except where the bequest is made to depend on a 
covenant feature, as in the text last considered. 
“ God so loved the world, that he gave.” Here is the 
broad, beneficent, unconditional testamentary idea. 
God gave. There is no promise here. It is a gift — a 
consummated event. This feature was a promise 
before it became a testament. But when the tes- 
tator died the promise was transformed into a tes- 
tament — a bona fide gift. But there is yet a prom- 
ise incorporated in true covenantal form in the body 
of the testament or will — the promise of the Sancti- 
fier, the Holy Ghost — hence the residue of the text 
quoted, “that whosoever believeth in him should 
not perish,” should receive the life of the Holy 
Spirit. 

We have in Scripture two testaments — each with 
its covenantal features. The first is provisional and 
symbolic: Provisional, as providing a temporary 
remedy till the second is in force; symbolic, be- 
cause its dedication in the blood of beasts prefig- 
ured the dedication of the second in the blood of 
Christ. The righteousness and holiness it required 
were temporary, being external, mental, and legal. 
It also prefigured the better holiness which should 
be wrought in the moral nature by the Holy Ghost 
under the second testament. (Ileb. ix. 15-18.) 

The first testament was carnal — that is, it was 


A Covenantal Testament. 


39 


dedicated by a man in the blood of beasts, with a 
man as its mediator, and its principles were ethical, 
its duties mental and physical. The second testa- 
ment is spiritual; it was dedicated in the blood of 
the Son of God; its principles are spiritual, and its 
ethics spring from a spiritual source; they are in- 
spired by the Holy Ghost. For an account of these 
testaments, a contrast and comparison, the reader is 
referred especially to the eighth and ninth chapters 
of Hebrews. 

The term “dedication ” is scriptural, not forensic. 
Paul uses it as descriptive of the divine process of 
putting a testament in force. 

It has been assumed in these studies that the 
baptism of the Holy Ghost is the only antidote for 
depravity. The “ law is a sedative, conscience an 
anodyne, morals a restraining process; but for a 
thorough constitutional treatment of the disease 
called depravity the Holy Ghost baptism is the 
only known remedy. To bring this remedy within 
the reach of man Jesus was promised to the world. 
But before entering directly upon the discussion of 
the relation which Jesus Christ sustains to the bap- 
tism of the Holy Ghost, it may assist our inquiries 
to devote some thought to the Spirit of God. 

I need not detain the reader by discussing the re- 
lation of the Spirit to the Trinity. I am a Trinita- 
rian. I receive the standard orthodox view. For 
the purpose of this discussion theories of the Trin- 
ity are not needed. God in the Spirit works. It is 
the method of that work I am now studying, and 
not the facts nor the philosophy of his existence. 


40 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


The Scriptures disclose two distinct functions of 
the Holy Spirit — one to enlighten, the other to pu- 
rify. The function of enlightenment deals exclu- 
sively with the intellect; that of purifying deals 
with the moral nature of man. Law and prophecy 
spring from the first; purity of heart from the 
latter. 

The enlightening process applies to man irre- 
spective of his moral condition. Under this func- 
tion the worst character of sinners are influenced 
directly by the Spirit of God, and are so lighted up 
in their mental conception to see and realize their 
dreadful moral condition that they often change 
their course of conduct and seek salvation with 
prayers and teal’s. But this is a very different ex- 
ercise of the Spirit from that which purifies the man 
and makes him holy in his very nature. It is the 
same Spirit, but the work is not the same. Let one 
be lost in the forest; the light of a given star indi- 
cates the direction which the lost one should travel. 
But the delivery from that loss is quite a different 
thing from the instruction which led to the deliv- 
ery. The enlightening grace of the Spirit aids the 
sinner in his delivery from sin, but the purifying 
function performs the act of delivery. 

Under the first covenant the Spirit of God pro- 
ceeded no further than to enlighten. This process 
was confined chiefly to angel visitations and prophet- 
ic inspirations. “My Spirit shall not always strive 
with man ; for that he also is flesh.” The Spirit here 
referred to is intended to describe that function of 
the divine government in force under the covenant 


A Covenanted Testament. 


41 


of that day. Whatever of enlightenment the na- 
tions of that age enjoyed, be it much or little, was 
the grace of the Spirit, and was capable of being 
resisted. Noah was taught by the Spirit to build 
an ark. How the Spirit taught him it is not essen- 
tial that we should know. The Spirit may have 
sent an angel to him, or may have given him direct 
inspiration. It matters not, for in either event 
Noah could have resisted and have grieved the 
Holy Spirit, and it would have been appropriate 
to say: “My Spirit shall not always strive with 
man.” We find variety in God himself, and the 
most wonderful variety in his works; so there is 
variety in the Spirit’s work. Paul speaks plainly 
of this diversity of the Spirit’s gifts — one Spirit, but 
many forms of acting. 

The Holy Spirit’s office before Christ was to re- 
veal law, to inspire. But after Christ he added to 
this office that of purifier, comforter. 

Jesus’ death and resurrection provided for the ex- 
ercise of this purifying function of the Spirit — the 
cleansing grace. And this i3 specifically set out in 
John vii. 38, 39. There is no question as to the 
fact that a difference exists in the methods of divine 
administration before and after the advent of the 
Saviour. All writers that I have read agree to this. 
Indeed, a cursory glance at the two books called the 
Old and the New Testaments will suffice to estab- 
lish this fact. The reason of this difference is usu- 
ally not considered at all by those writers; it is 
deemed by them to be either non-essential or inex- 
plicable; but to satisfy a shallow inquiry they have 


42 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


in some instances furnished an explanation of the 
difference, by what they are pleased to call “ in- 
creased light,” “increased revelation,” without any 
regard for the “reasons” that produce the differ- 
ence. “More light” and “more revelation” are 
treated by most writers as the same thought couched 
in different words, yet the word “ revelation” is ca- 
pable of conveying a higher thought than the phrase 
“ more light.” More light may be the result of or- 
dinary experience or of mental labor. Revelation 
means light furnished the human intellect by direct 
impact with the mind of a power wholly supernat- 
ural, and is not the result of ratiocination. Our 
writers on this subject do not define well, and often 
use those phrases as interchangeable terms. By 
their use those writers usually mean that God has 
gradually revealed his law to mankind through a 
succession of ages until the crown of revelation was 
set on the head of the Church by the holy apostles 
of the New Testament. 

But the truth. of this position depends altogether 
on what is meant here by “revelation.” If, as is 
usual, no more is meant than a mere revelation of 
law, as was the case at Mount Sinai, it is not true. 
But if by revelation is meant both the law and the 
revelation of the Father to the consciousness of-the 
believer by the Lord Jesus Christ, then the state- 
ment is correct. But the latter idea is not usually 
included in the definition. By increased revelation 
is meant generally only another statute added to 
the list already published. Yet it is clear to my 
conception that the process by which Jesus reveals 


A Covenanted Testament. 


43 


the Father to the soul of man is the closing act of 
a long line of gradual revelation. That revelation, 
as a system within itself, is made complete in the 
process by which the believer in Jesus is sanctified 
and put in unison with the Father, and this is the 
doctrine of regeneration. And further, it is clear 
to my mind that the system called the New Testa- 
ment in the blood of Jesus takes its name and char- 
acter from the new relation the soul sustains to God 
through the re-creating power of the Holy Ghost 
given to man through faith in the actually shed 
blood of Jesus Christ. The word testament in the 
Bible means more than ordinary revelation; it 
means a particular kind of revelation. It marks 
an era when the relation of man to God assumed a 
new and higher aspect. So it was when the first 
testament was established with Moses at Sinai. 
The Church took a higher relation to God, but it 
was still a law or legal relation, and therefore a car- 
nal one. But it was in the line of advancement — 
a rise upward toward God, a coming nearer to God. 
For now under this testament a priest was ordained 
to hold regular communion with God. This was 
peculiar, although still by a carnal process, and was 
deemed the holiest act of the Israelitish economy, 
and it was symbolic of a moral state the whole 
Church would be advanced to under the New Tes- 
tament. So when Jesus entered into the holiest 
“by a new and living way” he invited all believers 
to come with him into the divine communion, which 
was approached no longer by carnal measures, but 
by the holy process of faith in the shed blood of 


44 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


Jesus Christ. This last development is the kind of 
revelation furnished under the New Testament. It 
is not the revelation of law, but the revelation of 
God himself to the inward consciousness of the be- 
liever’s soul, such as is enjoyed in the holy estate of 
Christian perfection. Jesus said: “ No man know- 
eth the Father save the Son, and he to whom the 
Son shall reveal him.” This is the revelation of the 
New Testament, as law had been the revelation of 
the Old Testament. The Old Testament completed 
the canon of law together with the comments and 
additions of Christ and the apostles. The New Tes- 
tament opens, and now holds open perpetually, the 
canon of “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ 
Jesus.” We are now under the New Testament, 
a system of divine revelation wherein the nature — 
not the statutes, but the nature — of God is revealed 
to us. To enjoy this knowledge the believer passes 
through the process of moral reconstruction, or, in 
Church parlance, is made a new creature. The 
first testament is a revelation of the will or laws of 
God; the second testament is a revelation of the 
nature of God and duties growing out of that rela- 
tion. Adam was the carnal head of a carnal race; 
Moses was the carnal mediator of a carnal testa- 
ment; Jesus is the head of a spiritual race and me- 
diator of a spiritual testament. Adam was the cre- 
ated head. Jesus is begotten by the Holy Ghost of 
that creation, and is therefore a spiritual descend* 
ant of Adam; and now he, the spiritual, federal 
head, begets by the Spirit, through the process of 
faith, other spiritual children; and thus we have a 


A Covenantal Testament. 


45 


race of spiritual descendants of Adam. This is 
the work of the second testament, and is the glory 
that followed the sufferings of Christ. These are 
the heirs of Abraham by faith in Jesus, who in- 
herit by faith the spiritual promise contained in the 
Abrahamic covenant. 


CHAPTER V. 


Israel in Covenant. 


OD had two purposes in the establishment of 



vjr Israel: First, a revelation of his will; sec- 
ondly, the especial religious training of tfie nation. 
The latter is the consequence of the former. 

The time had come for a larger and better reve- 
lation than had hitherto been given. The world 
was idolatrous with rare exceptions, and religious 
light was feeble and insufficient. Since the flood 
evil had made prodigious strides, and the dark cloud 
of universal gloom was once more settling down on 
the race of man. But Divine Providence would 
provide a counteracting influence which should 
have the twofold purpose of checking idolatry and 
giving the world a true and useful revelation, and 
it would also draw a sharper line of distinction be- 
tween the good and the bad of earth. Abraham 
was of the best type of the true worshiper, and was 
therefore selected as the founder of a new empire. 
He was preferred over the good priest, Melchizedek. 
The new empire was designed to be a training- 
school wherein the true idea of God could be not 
only preserved, but amplified and developed and 
ultimately revealed to man in sufficient fullness. 

The revelations of God were imperfectly known 
to Abraham. Mingling with truth, the imperfect 


(46) 


Israel in Covenant. 


47 


and erroneous revelations of the magicians and 
astrologers and necromancers were everywhere seen 
in the nation from which the patriarch was called. 
These corrupted the pure truth and darkened the 
dawning light. Laban, though a believer in God, 
had his household gods. Here the faith was di- 
vided. The true faith was being corrupted. God 
would separate Abraham from the evil influence, 
and thus rear up a nation free from such contami- 
nation. This spurious form of revelation came from 
a Satanic source, and God would separate Abraham 
and his seed from its influence. Thus would pure 
revelation be protected from the spurious. After 
Israel was thus set apart God commanded that all 
the low and vicious forms of revelation should be 
excluded from them. Severe laws were enacted 
against “familiar spirits,” “wizards,’' “necroman- 
cers," and all forms of the lower and vicious class 
of spiritualism. See Deuteronomy xviii. 

There have always been two lines of revelation : 
one from Satan through evil men; one from God 
through obedient, believing men. The prophetic 
power is natural— -being a peculiar mental develop- 
ment in certain persons, male and female. If such 
person is wicked, Satan seizes possession of this 
strange faculty, and makes the subject do work in 
the interest of his dark and dangerous empire. Out 
of this class comes the “ familiar spirit," the “ wiz- 
ard," and the “necromancer ” of the Canaanites. 
It is a low and corrupt form of magianism. But if 
stich person has faith in God, and is obedient to his 
commands, the Holy Spirit takes possession. Out 


48 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


of this class come the prophets of Israel. Before 
Israel became an organized nation this class of per- 
sons was called magi. But the magi were divided 
into the lower and higher classes long before Is- 
rael’s da}’. In the line of Persia the higher class 
were called magi as late as the days of the birth 
of Christ. Some of thi3 class came from the 
“far East,” which is Persia, to worship the infant 
Christ. Daniel no doubt was admitted to this or- 
der, as he possessed the power in the highest form. 
In Persia and Chaldea he was regarded as a magi- 
cian; in Judea he was a prophet. The magi in the 
line of Israel became prophets. Joseph was a ma- 
gician, and so probably was Moses. 

In the line of Canaan this power was prostituted 
to its lowest possible uses, and the magician was 
called by various names, such as “ wizard,” “ necro- 
mancer,” and “familiar spirit.” It was about the 
same as a genuine case of modern spiritualism, only 
the latter is restrained by a higher civilization. 
There is an order of priests connected with the an- 
cient religion of India who claim this power, and 
furnish the system of Buddha with its fanciful phi- 
losophy. 

It was God’s purpose to preserve a pure line of 
revelation, and for this reason Abraham was se- 
lected to head a nation which should be carefully 
guarded by every possible appliance of law, ritual, 
and Providence from the corrupting influence of 
the Satanic line of revelation. For this divine line 
of revelation was to be a gradual ascent in revealed 
law to the ultimate revelation of the nature of 


Israel in Covenant. 


49 


God. This last was to occur in the methods of the 
New Testament. Jesus by faith was to reveal the 
Father to man. This is the baptism of the Holy 
Ghost. 

All have seen how difficult it was to preserve Is- 
rael from these corrupting influences. Wherever 
spiritualism reigned idolatry ruled. As long as 
spiritualism was permitted in Israel the nation was 
constantly falling into idolatry, and God allowed the 
nations to punish Israel till at last, after the long 
and sad desolations of the Chaldean captivity, the 
nation was cured. Necromancy and familiar spir- 
its disappeared, and so idolatry appeared no more 
in Israel by consent of the nation. 

When Jesus appeared he found what he called 
“ possessed of devils,” a species of spiritualism. But 
it could do no harm as a process of revelation. 
Every other form was condemned to death, and the 
whole nation was against it. Their teaching had 
no influence. In one instance these cried out and 
said: “We know thee who thou art, the holy one 
of Israel.” Jesus immediately commanded them to 
be silent. Paul also found in Macedonia a young 
woman who was possessed with them. She fol- 
lowed Paul for days, and cried, saying: “ These men 
are come to teach us the way of salvation.’ 1 Paul 
commanded them to be silent, and cast ftiem out of 
the woman. Why should Jesus and Paul object? 
The spirits told only the truth, and it was the very 
truth that the apostles wanted the people to believe. 
It would seem from the ordinary stand-point that 
they should have accepted this testimony. But they 
4 


50 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


did not. If Jesus and Paul had done so, they would 
have recognized and indorsed this low and vicious 
mode of revelation. They would have opened the 
door which no one could ever have closed. The 
lying spirits who to-day would acknowledge Jesus 
to be the Holy One of Israel, and Paul to be a 
preacher of the true way of salvation, would to- 
morrow tell some falsehood and lead such as might 
believe them into hopeless ruin. Jesus and Paul 
would give it no encouragement whatever. If from 
this source the hearer received any truth, it w^as 
mixed with error and was always misleading and 
ruinous. Such was true of ancient spiritualism, 
hence the universality of idolatry. Such is true 
also of modern spiritualism when not fraudulent. 
If it has any truth, it is mingled with ruinous false 
teaching. 

Jesus is the end of the law and the prophets — • 
that is, law and prophecy find their highest forms 
and fulfillment in him. The line of divine revela- 
tion led up to him, and by his mysterious connec- 
tion with faith and the Holy Ghost man is elevated 
and finds spiritual union with God himself. Israel 
was instituted and preserved for this very end. 

It was to preserve a line of incorruptible revela- 
tion that the nation of Israel was providentially 
called into being. This nation is a miracle, from the 
day that Abraham was called to the present hour 
that beholds them still holding together, though 
scattered and cursed. Once the elect of God, to 
whom pertain the promises and of whom are the 
oracles of God, the kingdom of GM on earth was 


Israel in Covenant. 


51 


their legal inheritance. But sin has wrought its 
usual results with them, as with all who serve sin. 
“The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and 
given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” 
This solemn prophecy was announced to them by 
Jesus himself when he saw the perverseness of their 
unbelief and sins. But this prophecy was not ful- 
filled till the end for which the nation had been 
providentially instituted was realized. The nation 
was intended to aid in developing the promise of 
salvation, and the covenants and testament's of God. 
The Israel of the first covenant was earthly; the 
Israel of the second covenant is spiritual. 

Revelation of the higher order ceased, so far as 
law and duties are concerned, when the Holy Ghost 
was given. The canon is complete, but under the 
New Testament the canon of the law of the Spirit 
is still open and will stand open till the last judg- 
ment. The Spirit leads us now to comprehend the 
laws of God. 


CHAPTER VI. 


The True Theory of the Covenants and Testa- 
ments. 



I HERE were no covenants or testaments with 


_L Adam prior to the fall. What is related of 
him is a simple story of his creation and fall. He 
was made holy, and so lived. It was not needful 
that he should have a code of ethics — his nature 
was his code — but he heeded instruction, however, 
which related wholly to his intellect and not to 
his morals. Such was the inhibition — the lone 
command given him. 

Whether the purpose of God to redeem man was 
taken before or after the fall I need not now con- 
sider. This much is clear: He did not put such 
purpose into effect till after the fall. Therefore, so 
far as man is concerned, the first covenant came into 
force after the fall. It began with Adam after he 
had sinned, in the element of promise only, and 
gradually developed through the ages to come. 

The first covenant was twofold — being one with- 
in itself, but always coupled with a promise of the 
second. The first was both real and typical — real, 
because it contained blessings; typical, because it 
foreshadowed the second. Taul to the Hebrews 
(ix. 1, 2) is explicit in description of the first cove- 
nant. “It had also ordinances,” “a candlestick 


( 52 ) 


True Theory of the Covenants and Testaments. 53 


and the mercy-seat,*’ etc. Such characteristics can- 
not be affirmed of any covenant supposed to exist 
between Adam and God before the fall, or between 
the Father and the Son. This description is wholly 
inappropriate to the garden of Eden, or to any wor- 
ship or service thereof, or to any event or time pre- 
vious to Eden. It applies alone to a state of affairs 
subsequent to the fall, yet Faul calls it the first 
covenant. 

In tins discussion Taul recognizes only two cov- 
enants, and both of these are post-Edenic. They 
are styled by pre-eminence the first and second. 
This first covenant can be no other than the one 
confirmed with Moses. It appears in dim promise 
to Adam, and in bolder outline with Abraham. In 
this patriarch it is in dual form, being both secular 
and spiritual — secular as it related to his physical 
heirs and the land of Canaan, and spiritual in that 
it contained a promise of a spiritual inheritance for 
his heirs by faith; secular as it referred to Canaan, 
and spiritual as it related to Christ. 

In Mose3 the two forms took on a bolder charac- 
ter, and were more explicitly set forth. The first 
testament was accompanied with a code and ritual, 
and on the subject was enjoined obedience on pain 
of death. But bound in the same volume are the 
strange symbols of the sanctuary and the holy of 
holies: the altar, the anxious cherubim, and the 
cities of refuge. The law commanded obedience as 
a condition of physical life; the symbols bid the 
yoke-burdened worshiper look forward to a prom- 
ise but dimly defined, a great blessing in the dis- 


54 Behold the Lamb of God! 

tant future. Blood and sacrifice became more than 
ever significant, and the future was an object of in- 
tense but unsatisfying inquiry. Nothing was clear 
except the secular principles of the first covenant — 
obedience to law and faith in God. In God as king, 
but not in his triune character, man was taught to 
find his friend and monarch. This many believed. 
Their belief in God was as stern and inflexible a3 
was the partially-revealed God of their faith. They 
believed that if they obeyed God they would live 
and prosper; that if they disobeyed God they would 
suffer and die. They were not far enough ad- 
vanced to distinguish between a civil and religious 
polity. Politics, or civil law and religion, were 
mixed in their theocratic polity. In fact, the State 
was the Church. 

Under this covenant very littl§ is revealed of 
heaven or any future state. Heaven is never set 
before the righteous — all lids hope of reward is in 
this life. Such is especially true of the first devel- 
opments of the first covenant. Any passage relat- 
ing to a future state is little more than sibylline. 

To the question, “ Why did not God fully reveal 
himself at first to man?” I answer, Jesus Christ 
was not developed; and if still interrogated, “ Why 
did not God develop Jesus Christ ? ” I can only 
give a conjectural answer. It is difficult to explain 
the reasons and motives of Deity in the absence of 
revelation. He is infinite, man is finite. The dif- 
ference is too great to admit of arbitrary intercourse 
on our part. God’s plan of work in the moral world 
is much like that we see in the physical. Generally 


True Theory of the Covenants and Testaments. 55 

it is a slow and gradual process. If it be wise in 
his physical works, why not conclude that wisdom 
prevails in the other? The light of science dawned 
slowly on the world, and the telegraph, telephone, 
printing, and the present system of astronomy were 
denied human discovery for nearly six thousand 
years; and why should God hasten the spiritual 
work? He did not. Here let us halt. His reasons 
are his secrets. In the spiritual, as in the physical, 
light has dawned slowly but surely to the day of 
Jesus Christ, and still higher the light is rising. 
Substantial reasons might be furnished for this 
seeming delay on God’s part, but they are conject- 
ural and should not encumber these pages. 

Lost in Eden, man wasi:o be restored, if at all, 
by as natural a process as that by which he fell. In 
the fall the supernatural and the natural were com- 
bined — Satan’s agency and man’s. In the restora- 
tion the combination should be of God and man; 
hence the God-man in the scheme. This was at 
once a prophecy of man’s reunion with God, and 
the means of the union. This reunion is styled a 
regeneration. But this term, when used as descrip- 
tive of the divine work wrought upon mankind, 
must not be limited, as it is in common parlance, to 
the immediate effect of the Holy Spirit on man s 
present status; for in its more comprehensive sense 
it must include the work of the final resurrection 
as well. The whole scheme, then, from the initial 
step of the first promise of the coming Son of God 
Jo the last glorifying touch of the grace which that 
Son shall bestow on the risen Christian, was, is, and 


56 


Behold the. Lamb of God! 


shall be a gradual ascent in the regenerating proc- 
ess of God. Elsewhere in these pages the word 
regeneration is used generally in the commonly- 
accepted sense of the Methodist Church when it is 
affirmed, either directly or indirectly, that the ante- 
Messianic fathers were not regenerated in any sense 
known to the New Testament. I do not mean to 
say that they possessed not the Spirit of God, which 
in some manner attested and witnessed to them 
their acceptance with God; what I mean to teach 
is that the grace was not given them. The Spirit 
of God was with and in every just man, but it did 
not perform the function of cleansing and making 
ho}y their carnal nature. This was reserved for the 
new covenant or testament in the blood of Christ. 
The ideas of regeneration and sanctification are 
often used synonymously in the New Testament, 
but they could never be so used in the Old. For 
while regeneration, as indicating the operations of 
the Iloly Spirit in the mind , did exist under the 
first covenant, that operation of the same Spirit 
which purges all corruption out of our flesh, and 
which in the New Testament is called sanctification, 
did not exist under the first covenant, except in a 
figurative sense. An act of separation from common 
worldly uses sanctified the' thing or person so set 
apart, but intrinsically the thing or person was in 
nature no more holy than it was before such a sep- 
aration. This legal sanctification was symbolic of 
that which was to be under the coming testament 
of Christ. So the first grade of Spirit operation 
was *he initial steps of the regenerating process — a 


True Theory of the Covenants and Testaments. 57 


dim and unsatisfactory measure of the Holy Spirit. 
It served the purpose of enlightenment. The 
second was that which not only , began the re- 
generation of the mind, but reached into our carnal 
depths and purged sin out of the flesh. The third 
will be that powerful measure of Spirit that glori- 
fles the flesh and makes it immortal. In penitent, 
believing Adam, Abel, Enoch, Abraham, and John 
the Baptist we have specimens of the first. In Je- 
sus’ human form and the holy, sanctified Christian 
we have specimens of the second. Jesus was as 
human as I am, but in him — Spirit and flesh — dwelt 
no sin. He was perfect. Yet, like the first Adam, 
he was liable to temptation, and must needs watch all 
the time and pray. In the sanctified Christian we 
find a human nature like that of Christ — pure, sin- 
less. But he is liable to temptation, and therefore 
must watch and pray, or he may fall. In the risen 
Christ we find a specimen of the third. His human 
nature while in the flesh ou earth was sinless, but it 
was not glorified. Now it is also glorified and i3 
lifted above the realm of Satan, and temptations and 
liability to fall have all passed away. So will be the 
Christian in the resurrection. Ilis body, like the 
Master’s, will be glorified; for “we shall be like 
him,” and liability to fall will have passed away. 

“The least one in the kingdom of heaven is 
greater than he.” Jesus affirmed this of John the 
Baptist, and at the same time declared that he was 
greater than all his predecessors. Wherein is the 
least one in the kingdom of heaven greater than 
John? In learning ? The kingdom of heaven does 


58 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


not consist in learning, and letters are not consid- 
ered in estimating its character. But in this re- 
spect even it is not true, for many Christians are 
far inferior to John, to say nothing of the learned 
Moses, Daniel, and Ezra, in point of education. In 
morality ? I know not where in all Christendom 
one will find better specimens of morals than in 
Samuel, Daniel, Abel, and Enoch. And as for John 
himself, he was a sublime illustration of morality. 
In prophetic power? As a matter of history and fact 
the New Testament has furnished no prophet great- 
er than the former dispensation, hardly as great. 
In the matter of miracles? Christ himself wrought 
no greater miracles than are found in the history of 
Moses, Joshua, and Elijah. Moses divided seas and 
brought water gushing and cool from the desert 
rocks. Joshua divided Jordan into motionless 
walls, and at his command the sun ceased its ac- 
tion on the planets. Elijah called fire out of heav- 
en, and chased death out of the frozen blood of the 
Shunammite’s son. In what, then, is this “least 
one” greater than the mighty heroes of the first 
covenant? In nothing save that of the all-cleans- 
ing power of the Iloly Ghost. 


CHAPTER VII. 


Nature of the First Covenant. 
~T”yNDER tlie first covenant and testament the 
v_J present blessings were carnal; the spiritual 
blessings were of promise only, and this because the 
blood of the real sacrifice was not yet shed ; it was only 
promised. There was a measure of spiritual devel- 
opment, a “sanctification,” “holiness,” “ remission 
of sins,” “sacrifice,” and a Church — all provisional 
— suited to the nature of the covenant under which 
they existed. But “it was not possible that the 
blood of bulls and goats should take away sins,” 
and as yet there was no better blood. Religion was 
carnal, and the light of revelation was suppressed. 
If I am asked to prove that the rewards and sor- 
rows of a future state were not set before the Church 
of this covenant, I would reply by asking to be re- 
ferred to a single case of it. There is nothing of it, 
therefore nothing to prove. These things devel- 
oped in prophecy as relating to the second cove- 
nant, and not to the first. Every thing that devel- 
oped in heavenly perfection under the covenant and 
testament of blood divine had its provisional type 
under the testament in the blood of beasts. The 
second covenant is an improvement in nothing that 
was capable of perfection under the first. The 
promise of a Christ to come gave the Holy Spirit 

• ( 59 ) 


60 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


full power under the provisional system, to inspire 
prophets and direct man’s intellect, to convict and 
impress, hut not to renew the moral nature. The 
promise or the actual death of Christ did not cre- 
ate the Iloly Spirit, of course. lie always existed, 
hut the method of his work depended on Christ’s 
work. Ilis death only made it possible for the Holy 
Spirit to renew man in the moral image of God. 
The Spirit’s grace of conviction and inspiration did 
not depend on the actual death of the Saviour. The 
promise was sufficient for that. Under the first 
covenant we have “sacrifice” and “baptism;” but 
they were the sacrifices of beasts and the baptism 
of blood and water, which by every point of differ- 
ence between them and the Son of God came short 
of the divine baptism in their effects on man’s 
heart. 

The baptism of the Holy Ghost was not a provis- 
ional remedy, nor was it known under the provis- 
ional covenant. Holiness under the first meant less 
than it means under the second. Pardon under the 
first means less than under the second, and so a dif- 
ference in every thing that was incapable of com- 
pletion or perfection under the first. Why was 
real holiness and pardon and righteousness incapa- 
ble of perfection under the first covenant? Simply 
because there was no perfect sacrifice under that 
system. The real sacrifice which is the cause of all 
spiritual righteousness and pardon and sanctifica- 
tion and holiness was not offered under the first, 
hut under the second covenant. So we read in He- 
brews ix. 15, 16: “And for this cause he is the me- 


Nature of the First Covenant. 


61 


diator of the new testament, that by means of death, 
for the redemption of the transgressions that were 
under the first testament, they which are called 
might receive the promise of eternal inheritance, 
For where a testament is, there must also of neces- 
sity be the death of the testator.’’ 

The death of Jesus was for the redemption of 
transgressions under the first testament. These 
transgressions had not been atoned for or taken 
away, for it was not possible that the blood of 
beasts should be a vicarious offering for sin except 
in a symbolic or figurative way. The blood of 
beasts was the provisional atonement — the Saviour 
had not come and sins had never been cleansed away 
— notwithstanding the justification of the sinner. 

Well-meaning theologians have taught that the 
good people of the pre-incarnation ages were made 
holy by a prospective faith in the blood of Jesus. 
That I do not now dispute, although serious objec- 
tion might be taken to the definiteness of that 
faith. What blood could they see in the future 
when Jesus had not died? The objection I now 
urge is as to the date that faith became effect- 
ive. The received theory is that the full effect was 
immediate. To this I object. But there is another 
theory that lies right along by the side of this, and 
is as generally received — viz., that the blood of 
Christ acts back over the ages favorably to all who 
believed. But when did it act back, and when did 
this supposed prospective faith receive its reward? 
To these questions the current answer is: “Now; 
just when the ancient servant of God believed, the 


G*2 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


blood of Jesus shed its virtue by retroaction over 
the ages.” But the last quoted text does not war- 
rant such conclusion. His blood was not shed un- 
til late in history. It was shed virtually under 
the second testament, and when so shed it reached 
back over the ages; or, properly speaking, it was 
the cause of the sanctification of those who had 
lived in former a^es. The idea of acting back is 
wholly gratuitous. It could not act until it exist- 
ed. It did not act back — it acted on those pres- 
ent, living and dead, at the time it was shed. The 
Word of the old testament had no blood. The 
blood was a part of Jesus, not of the pre-incarnated 
Christ. It was the blood of Jesus as he was the 
incarnated Word. The Word had no existence in 
the form of flesh and blood till he was born of Mary. 
It was his connection with the human that made 
him capable of blood and death. The writer of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews expressly tells us that with- 
out the death of the testator the testament is of no 
force. Jesus was not yet dead, and of course his 
testament was not in force. It was for this very 
reason that the imperfect and preparatory system 
called the first covenant was improvised — a tempo- 
rary plan of righteousness — to answer the ends of 
mercy till the death of the real testator occurred. 
The pious people of the first testament were indeed 
called, and to the extent of the facilities granted them 
under provisional grace they obeyed, but their real 
redemption was deferred till the death of the great 
Testator under the new testament, for all the trans- 
gressions committed under former dispensations. 


Nature of the First Covenant. 


63 


The temporary pardon of the first system was in- 
complete in that it was not immediately followed 
by the renewal of the moral nature; it was condi- 
tioned on the sacrifice of the coming Christ. This 
was an implied condition underlying every thing of 
a religious nature of that age, and nothing could be 
completed until the condition had transpired; hence 
they were only “ called.” If they obeyed they were 
reserved in paradise, the heaven of the first cove- 
nant, for the inheritance of Christ which was called 
eternal and was beautifully symbolized by the holy 
of holies. Christianity, as developed in the risen Je- 
sus, provides a real holiness; so that while the pro- 
visional system was holy, this is the holiest of all 
the holies. 

The testament of real holiness had no force till 
the death of the testator. On this point hear Peter 
(1 Pet. i. 10-12) : “ Of which salvation the prophets 
have inquired and searched diligently, who proph- 
esied of the grace that should come unto you: 
searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of 
Christ which was in them did signify, when it tes- 
tified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the 
glory that should follow. Unto whom it was re- 
vealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they 
did minister the things, which are now reported 
unto you by them that have preached the gospel 
unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from 
heaven; which things the angels desire to look 
into.” 

Commenting on this text, Dr. Benson says: 
“From this it appears that in many instances the 


64 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


prophets did not understand the meaning of their 
own prophecies, but studied them, as others did, 
with great care in order to find it out. See Daniel 
vii. 28, and xii. 5. This care they used more espe- 
cially in examining the prophecies they uttered 
concerning Christ.” (“Commentary on First Pe- 
ter.”) 

In this case the prophet was speaking of “salva- 
tion?” It was therefore of salvation itself they in- 
quired and searched diligently, not understanding 
salvation the subject of their own messages. And 
Peter tells us it was revealed unto them that this 
grace was for a subsequent age, and not for that in 
which the prophets lived. 

Lot is called righteous by an apostle, and is one 
of the great historical figures of antiquity preserved 
in the Bible record. Angels visited him, talked 
with him, ate at his board, reposed confidence in 
him, and declared that they could not execute their 
divine commission — the destruction of the cities of 
the plain — till Lot had escaped from the doomed 
territory. Mortality was never more signally rec- 
ognized and favored by angels than was righteous 
Lot. But the smoke and vapors of the burning 
cities had scarcely floated from the neighboring 
hills till “righteous Lot” is senselessly drunk on 
two successive nights and in his revels commits in- 
cest of such a revolting form that a Christian reader 
shudders and hastens from the dismal record. But 
no word of condemnation is recorded, and Lot is 
canonized in the New Testament as “righteous 
Lot.” If Lot and his daughters, or either father 


Nature of the First Covenant. 


G5 


or daughters, enjoyed the holiness of the New Testa- 
ment, then indeed the Bible is too dark for discussion. 
It is futile to say that Lot enjoyed the sanctifying 
presence of the Iloly Ghost as perfect Christians do 
at this day, but was deficient in information. This 
is indeed the current mode of apology for his hid- 
eous record. “More light” had not come to him. 
That this apology will not do we have but to glance 
at the nature of his conduct. It was drunkenness. 
Not even revelation is necessary to teach the error 
of drunkenness. Heathens know and admit its fol- 
ly. How, then, as a holy man of this dispensation 
— a man full of the Iloly Ghost, as Christians now 
enjoy — could Lot have deliberately sunk himself 
into such vice! If it be claimed that it was a case 
of backsliding, I deny that such theory is at all 
probable. For, first, no intimation of it is hinted 
in either Testament. Secondly, it is highly improb- 
able that one would backslide under the terrible cir- 
cumstances attending these events. The odor of 
the sulphuric fires that consumed the cities was still 
in the air when this wretched conduct transpired. 
The greatest awe must have rested on the minds of 
Lot’s family. Finally, the simple narrative bears 
all the evidence of common usage. The daughters 
knew their father’s habit, and availed themselves of 
his weakness. His sense of honor and piety rose 
above sodomy and incest, but not above drunken- 
ness. The daughters doubtless thought the destruc- 
tion was more extensive than the immediate plain 
of their late residence; that Lot and themselves 
were the only survivors of the human race, as Noah 


66 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


and his family had once survived, and with intent 
far from wickedness they caused their father to get 
drunk. The motive was patriotic and elevated, con- 
sidering the customs of that early age of the world. 
But they feared that Lot would reason differently, 
and the daughters would execute their purpose with- 
out the father’s intelligent knowledge — for a drunk- 
en knowledge is not intelligent, if indeed he were 
at all conscious of his act. So while Lot cannot be 
excused if holy in the later Christian sense, on the 
ground of backsliding, yet his sin is greatly miti- 
gated when it is remembered and admitted that he 
lived in the twilight of revelation and that the holy 
Renewer of man’s fallen nature had not then come, 
for Jesus himself was not yet glorified. 


CHAPTER VIII. 


Nature of the First Covenant (Continued). 



rp HAT a marked difference exists in the mode 


JL of the divine government of men before and 
after Christ is admitted by all, and that far greater 
blessings are awarded the post-Messianic age is con- 
ceded. All the writers I have examined admit a 
great difference, but when they undertake to define 
it clouds at once envelop them. 

Those writers may be divided into three classes: 
First, those who hold that the new testament is a 
new and different system from the old; secondly, 
those who hold that the old and new are parts of 
one system, but that the Christian Church is new 
and was instituted under the new testament; 
third, those who hold that the old and new are 
parts of one system, and that the Church has al- 
ways existed and that the same character of spirit- 
uality was enjoyed under the first testament that 
is granted to believers under the second. 

The first error is that of modern Jews; thejsee- 
ond is that of Home and the Baptists; the third is 
that of some Arminian authors. Perhaps it is the 
received theory of Methodism. But I have cata- 
logued it here in this trio of errors. I have read 
nothing clear on this subject by any author of 
either theory except Mr. Wesley, and he treats it 


( 67 ) 


68 


Behold the Lamb of God ! 


only incidentally. I have introduced his views in 
Chapter X. It is the second and third of the three 
errors that interest us most. Much has been written 
by authors of this class. “Ecce Ecclesia” lias thor- 
oughly exploded the two errors first mentioned. It 
has made it clear that Christ did not institute a new 
Church. But the learned author of “ Ecce Ecclesia” 
lias himself fallen on a place where two seas meet. 
In defining the difference between the two testa- 
ments he is all clouds and mists. lie holds that the 
atonement was in full force and effect before Jesus 
died, and relies *on the existence of the Word before 
the incarnation for his argument. Dr. Abbey does 
well to defend the continuity of the Church, but 
that did not require him to assume that Jesus’ 
atonement was perfect before he died. This does 
not follow. Why the two testaments and the two 
great covenants? What is the precise difference in 
them? What did the coming and crucifixion and res - 
urrcciion do? What relation does Jesus as the Son of 
Mary sustain to redemption? God had not till then 
clothed himself with humanity and capacity for 
death and sacrifice. These questions are answered 
in terms so general as to have little or no meaning. 
“ More light has come; ” “ greater privileges are en- 
joyed;” “ Christ is now seen;” “he is now made 
manifest.” These and like expressions are the defi- 
nitions furnished; but if we ask what is meant by 
more light, and what are those greater privileges, 
and what benefit arises from the circumstance that 
a few Jews once saw and heard Jesus, we are left 
without answers. We arc informed that more light 


Nature of the First Covenant. 


69 


does not mean holiness of heart wrought by faith 
in Jesus Christ, for that privilege was, they say ? al- 
ways enjoyed by the Church. We are told that the 
post-Messianic Christian does indeed understand 
the theory of atonement better than those who lived 
before the incarnation, and that is about all the dif- 
ference. But this is to be understood of the intel- 
lect and not of the moral nature at all. Of what 
advantage is this, seeing all the benefits of atone- 
ment were enjoyed in previous ages? Bid the 
death of Jesus mean nothing? The error of “ Ecce 
Ecclesia” is this: It confounds the covenants and 
ignores them in their relation to the Church. This 
error originates in that to which I have already 
called the reader’s attention — viz., that the first cov- 
enant was made with Adam before his fall, and the 
second with Christ and Moses jointly. Seeing that 
by this error Moses and Jesus are blended in one 
covenant, they of course blend the graces and privi- 
leges of the two covenants. But in doing so thev 
have produced confusion in the councils of God, 
and flecked the fair face of holy Zion with the car- 
nal clouds of ceremonial piety. By this remarka- 
ble error the first and the second covenants are 
made to run parallel and are in force at one and the 
same time on one and the same people, thus abolish- 
ing the distinction which God has so clearly made, 
and destroying totally the idea of succession con- 
tained in the words “first” and “second.” The error 
detracts greatly from the glory of Christ, and im- 
pairs the vigor of a truly evangelical and spiritual 
administration. The dead ness of the Church of thia 


TO 


Behold the Larub of God! 


day proceeds largely from this error. Christians 
ar^ often satisfied with a mere legal religion be- 
cause they see it in parts of the Scriptures and do 
not recognize the revelation of a better state. 

The covenant which by reason of priority is 
called first was made known in outline to Adam 
after the fall, and to the prophets in the order of 
their appearance, being amplified in detail as the ages 
opened and the truth dawned, until in Abraham it 
took a covenant form, containing at the same time a 
promise of a better inheritance, an inheritance that 
should be eternal and not temporary. It was also 
enlarged and systematized in Moses and the institutes 
of Israel. See Galatians iii. 17, 18. The present of 
this covenant was alwa}'S earthly; the future was 
always spiritual. The first was a covenant of law 
and promise, and it was carnal. It was an intellect- 
ual conception of duty and a course of conduct cor- 
responding to that sense of duty. The law in- 
structed, and the subject obeyed. It was an out- 
ward religion, purely formal. The outward is car- 
nal, because it is the product of human ability. The 
law is spiritual — is not of earth. The forms and 
duties of the first covenant were suggested by the 
spirit of God, and were therefore spiritual. The 
law of the first testament was spiritual, only be- 
cause it was an inspiration of the Holy Ghost; but 
the law, whether moral or ceremonial, had no power 
to spiritualize its subject; therefore, however any 
one might conform to law, its only effect would he 
to correct habits of outward life; the heart (the in- 
ward dispositions) must remain untouched and un- 


Nature of the First Covenant . 


71 


changed. In this the law is only a school-master; 
it teaches duty and repentance; it moves the mind 
and produces conviction, but defers the hope of re- 
demption to a coming era — to the second covenant, 
to the risen Redeemer, when the spirit and not the 
form will reiem. 

The lirst covenant is styled a testament, and so is 
the second. It is called covenant because of mutu- 
ality of contract; it is called testament because it 
is the Father’s will — a benefit bequeathed, and death 
is essential to its efficacy. The first was made by 
the Father through man and established in Moses, 
the earthly mediator. This is Moses's house. It 
was earthly, though not sinful, and the Church was 
of the nature of the covenant under which it existed. 
The second was made by the Father through the 
Son as Mediator. The first was consecrated by the 
death of beasts, the second by the death of the Son. 
When the first was given the second was promised. 
During the prevalence of the first the second was 
enjoyed only as a promise deferred. The first closed 
when the second was executed. They do not cover 
the same period. They follow each other in chron- 
ological order, and that with mathematical exact- 
ness, though human observation may not note the 
exact period of transition. One age shades itself 
into another. The first came, and with it the prom- 
ise of the second. The first passed away, but as it 
passed the long-deferred promise of the second fol- 
lowed immediately on. Moses bowed out because 
Jesus had come. “This is my beloved Son: hear 
him.” The glory of this latter house is greater 


72 


Behold the Lamb of God ! 


than the former. The glory of each, whatever 
it is, is peculiar to the respective covenant under 
which it exists, and the time of its prevalence. If 
both covenants were in force at one and the same 
time, the glory of each was not peculiar to any par- 
ticular time, and there i$ no meaning in the words 
“former” and “latter/’ “firsthand “second,” as 
applied to the terms “ house ” and “ covenants” and 
“ testaments.” 

So the first covenant and testament of Moses were 
a carnal religion. It was indeed religion; it was a 
good religion ; it was the best known, and it pleased 
God to accept it, seeing he had prescribed it ; but aft- 
er all it was a carnal religion. Its nature is strongly 
set forth in Hebrews ix. 6-10: “Now when these 
things were thus ordained, the priest went always 
into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the serv- 
ice of God, but into the second went the high-priest 
alone once every year, not without blood, which he 
offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: 
the Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into 
the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while 
as the first tabernacle was yet standing: which was 
a figure for the time then present, in which were 
offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make 
him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the 
conscience; which stood only in meats and drinks, 
and divers washings, and cardinal ordinances, im- 
posed on them until the time of reformation.” 

This seems to be explicit. Paul is arguing the 
nature of the first covenant, and tells us it is carnal; 
that it consists in ceremonies, which are indeed 


Nature cf the First Covenant. 


73 


based on faith, but ceremonies nevertheless, which 
can do no more than produce a ceremonial cleans- 
ing, a 44 purifying of the flesh; ” that it did not and 
could not reach the inward conscience, could not 
produce a consciousness of inward purity. It lacked 
the internal witness, and he expressly tells us this 
peculiar arrangement was temporary — “imposed on 
them until the time of reformation;” and at the 
thirteenth verse he continues the argument: 44 For 
if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of 
a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the 
purifying of the flesh; how much more shall the 
blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit of- 
fered himself without spot to God, purge your con- 
science from dead works to serve the living God.” 

Here the function of the religion of this first cov- 
enant was to sanctify. But the sanctification, though 
exalted for the times, was only that of the flesh. 
It was therefore 44 dead works” — works without 
the inward spirit — a mere outward cleansing. 
The conscience, the heart, remained unpurged, un- 
sanctified. Recurring to the eighth and ninth 
verses of this chapter we find a singularly exact elab- 
oration of this thought: 44 The Holy Ghost this sig- 
nifying, that the wav into the holiest of all was not 
yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle 
was yet standing: which was a figure for the time 
then present, in which were offered both gifts and 
sacrifices, that could not make him that did' the serv- 
ice perfect, as pertaining to the conscience.” The 
plan of the tabernacle had been inspired by the 
Holy Ghost, and the two main departments were 


74 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


intended as figures — one for the times, or covenant 
present; the other for the better state of things, or 
second covenant to come. The lesson taught by 
the first tabernacle “ for the times then present ” 
was that every thing of a religious nature was low, 
carnal, insufficient, and therefore preparatory and 
transitory, for the “holiest of all was not yet made 
manifest.” 

The lesson taught by the holy of holies was that 
the holiness it prefigured was } T et to be developed, 
“ it was not yet made manifest.” At Ephesians iii. 
2-9 we read: “If ye have heard of the dispen- 
sation of the grace of God which is given me to 
you- ward: how that by revelation be made known 
unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in a few 
words. Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand 
my knowledge in the mystery of Christ,) which in 
other ages was not made known unto the sons of 
men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and 
prophets by the Spirit; that the Gentiles should be 
fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of 
his promise in Christ by the gospel: . . . and 

to make all men see what is the fellowship of the 
mystery, which from the beginning of the world 
hath been hid in God, who created all things by Je- 
sus Christ.” And in Romans xvi. 25-27 we read: 
“Now to him that is of power to stablish you ac- 
cording to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus 
Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, 
which was kept secret since the world began, but 
now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the 
prophets, according to the commandment of the 


Nature cf the First Covenant. 75 

everlasting God, made known to all nations for the 
obedience of faith: to God the only wise, be glory 
through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” 

Here is a mystery kept secret since the world 
began; it is now revealed in the gospel — the 
preaching of Jesus Christ; it is now made manifest; 
it is no longer covered or hidden in symbol and cer- 
emony. .This truth is “that which shall stablish 
you,” and the revelation itself is made clearer by 
the scriptures of the prophets, which God com- 
manded. We look back and draw strength to our 
faith in Christ, by the long, slow line of the past de- 
velopment. 

I have made long quotations that the reader may 
see that the design of these holy writers was to 
speak definitely of the very subject I am treating, 
and that they make the highest spiritual develop- 
ments occur under the second covenant, and by con- 
sequence not under the first, therefore although the 
first was religious, it is also carnal when compared to 
the intensely spiritual work of the later covenant. 


CHAPTER IX. 


Nature of the Second Covenant, or a New and 
Living Way. 

N the ninth chapter of Hebrews the writer de- 



JL dares the first tabernacle was a figure for'the 
times then present; that the holiest of all was not 
yet made manifest; that gifts and sacrifices of that 
period could not make the worshipers perfect, 
which stood only in meats and drinks and carnal 
ordinances, and that these had been imposed on 
them until the time of reformation. But that 
Christ had now come (the time of reformation also), 
and was a high-priest of better things, by a greater 
and more perfect tabernacle, and had made a sacri- 
fice whose benefits should be eternal. u For if the 
blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer 
sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying 
of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of 
Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered him- 
self without spot to God, purge your conscience from 
dead works to serve the living God.” 

How, observe, the apostle is contrasting the tes- 
tament and redemption of Jesus with the testament 
of Moses, and the redemption that was in the blood 
of Moses’s testament — the blood of beasts. The 
cleansing provided for in that insufficient testament 
was of the flesh — that is, it was merely outward, a 
ceremonial cleansing. The very cleansing itself 


( 76 ) 


A New and Lining Wag. 


77 


like the system under which it existed was only 
typical of the better cleansing and better blood of 
the new testament. The works of the first testa- 
ment were “ dead works ” — they flowed not from a 
spiritual condition of the subject, but from a mere 
intellectual sense of duty. But Jesus had now come 
and offered himself a spotless sacrifice to God; there- 
fore, if the sprinkling of the blood of beasts, done 
as a religious rite and by faith in God, had the ef- 
fect to make the worshiper ceremonially clean, how 
much more should the blood of Christ affect the 
soul, and open a direct avenue for the sanctifying 
Spirit of God to the very inward nature of man — his 
conscience. 

The word here translated conscience is defined by 
the learned to mean “ an inward moral or spiritual 
frame,” and does not relate to the faculty which 
sits in judgment on the moral quality of an act. It 
is a state of the soul. This the apostle claims to be 
the work of the Spirit, and is done in the soul as an 
effect of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ — a work that 
follows the death of Jesus and not as preceding it. 

But he knew the question would now be in order: 
"What, then, became of those who lived before Christ’s 
death and were obedient to the law? therefore he 
subjoins the following verse: “And for this cause 
he is the mediator of the new testament, that by 
means of death, for the redemption of the transgres- 
sions that were under the first testament, they which 
are called might receive the promise of eternal in- 
heritance.” 

Note this: the transgressions that were under the 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


fif-st testament had never been expiated. It was not 
possible that the blood of beasts could do that, and 
there was no other blood under that testament; but 
“in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again 
made of sins every year.” But the better blood or 
“ death ” was under the “ new testament,” and was 
“ for the redemption of the transgressions that were 
under the first testament” as well as for sinners of 
the present and future. Those living under the 
first testament died justified, while their sinful nat- 
ure remained unchanged, because justification is 
only a legal act done for and not in the sinner. 
They were “called.” They obeyed, and died in 
that obedience. They were therefore elected to en- 
joy whatever of rights, privileges, and blessings 
Christ should bring with him. One of these rights 
is divine sonsliip. To them that had been called 
“ gave he the power to become sons of God.” This 
is Ezekiel’s vision of the valley of dry bones. Eze- 
kiel said it would occur in the reign of David, but 
David was dead long before Ezekiel prophesied; it 
must therefore have been Jesus, who is sometimes 
called by that name. They had been called, and be- 
cause they believed God and obeyed they were 
elected to the enjoyment of this deferred privilege. 
But to the living, who heard the words of life from 
the holy apostles, the power to become the sons of 
God was given only when they believed. The holy 
dead did not have to believe or repent. They had 
done this before they died. Nothing remained but 
to conform their spirits to the image of Christ. This 
was done by election, and took place just after 


A New and Living Way. 


79 


Christ’s crucifixion, and is the vision of Ezekiel. 
(Chapter xxxvii.) Having explained how the sac- 
rifice offered to God in the person of Jesus affected 
the transgressions that were under the first testa- 
ment, and saved finally those who were called and 
elected under that system, the apostle next gives a 
reason for the non-efficiency of the atonement pre- 
vious to the death of Christ: “ For where a testa- 
ment is, there must also of necessity be the death of 
the testator. For a testament is of force after men 
are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all 
while the testator liveth.” This text is very perti- 
nent. Jesus had not yet died, and of course his 
testament was not yet in force; but pending his 
death a provisional system was in force. That sys- 
tem was the promise to Adam, the covenant with 
Abraham, and the testament of Moses. This, how- 
ever, was an imperfect testament, there having been 
no death to give it force except the death of beasts, 
in whose blood it was dedicated. This testament — • 
with its death, blood, and ceremonies — was imper- 
fect, since it was but provisional and symbolic of 
the true and perfect testament. The first testament, 
with its laws and ceremonies, was dedicated with 
the blood of beasts. This was earthly, and there- 
fore the religion of that testament is called “ car- 
nal.” It was intended as a “pattern” of a state of 
grace called “heavenly.” These “ patterns ” were 
revealed to Moses at Sinai. The final grace was 
covered in the mystery of the holy of holies which 
“was not yet made manifest.” Those mysteries 
typified by the holy of holies are of a heavenly nat- 


80 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


ure. The symbol of the mercy-seat and the cheru- 
bim gazing with curious interest on that mercy- 
seat were to be developed in the crucified and risen 
Christ. St. Peter declares that it was revealed unto 
the prophets “that not unto themselves, but unto 
us they did minister the things, which are now 
reported unto you by them that have preached the 
gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down 
from heaven ; which things the angels desire to look 
into.” The symbolic cherubim had always desired 
to look into the deep and thrilling mystery of that 
mercy-seat. “It was therefore necessary that the 
patterns of things in the heavens [or things of a 
heavenly nature] should be purified with these; but 
the heavenly things themselves with better sacri- 
fices than these,” The state of grace to be devel- 
oped under the testament of Jesus is heavenly, and 
could not be effected by the blood of beasts. Jesus’ 
own blood was needed to purify the heart and make 
man heavenly in his dispositions. “For Christ is 
not entered into the holy places made with hands, 
which are the figures of the true: but into heaven 
itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.” 

Pursuing this argument in unbroken line, the au- 
thor of this Epistle (Hebrews) moves on to the tenth 
chapter, fourteenth verse, where he again defines his 
meaning in the most definite language: “ For by one 
offering ho hath perfected forever them that are 
sanctified.” The holy dead were sanctified in the 
legal sense — set apart, “elected” — “to be con- 
formed to the image of Jesus Christ,” and by this 
one ottering they were now made perfect; and we 


A Neio and hieing Way. 


81 


likewise, who now receive that pffering by faith have 
a witness of perfection within ns, “whereof the Holy 
Ghost is also a witness to us; for after that he had 
said before, This is the covenant that I will make with 
them after those days, saith the Lord : I will put my 
laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write 
them; and their sins and iniquities will I remember 
no more.” 

Here then is the great difference between the first 
and second covenant and testaments: Under the 
first the law was written in books or on tables of 
stones; under the second it is to he written in the 
heart and mind, so “ having therefore, brethren, 
boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of 
Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath con- 
secrated for us, through the vail, that is to say, his 
flesh; and having a high-priest over the house of 
God; let us draw near with a true heart in full as- 
surance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from 
an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure 
water.” It was by the sprinkling of blood and the 
washing of water the body of the subject was puri- 
fied under the first testament, but under the second 
we have our hearts sprinkled and bodies washed. 
a Pure water ” signifies only the exaltation of the 
Christian purification. Presumably the water used 
by priests under the first testament was pure, but it 
eould not purify the heart. How, however, the 
cleansing by the Holy Ghost is heart-purification, 
and thus is likened to “ pure water.” Literally the 
water of Christian baptism is not purer than that 
used by the ancient priests, and the phrase “pure 
6 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


water” is not to be taken in the sense of water bap- 
tism, but only as indicating the superior purity of 
the Holy Ghost’s work in the believer’s heart. W e 
now come to God “ by a new and living way r — new, 
in that it is no longer the ceremonial process of the 
law; living, as distinguished from the dead, unspir- 
itual life of a legal process. We are now animated 
by the eternal Spirit who purges the heart, and 
urges us on in the holy life. When the heart is 
cleansed by this new and living way God no longer 
remembers our sins — that is, he no longer holds them 
against us, as was the case under the first testament. 
For then each act of worship by sacrifices was but 
a remembrance of all former sins — they were not 
purged away. It was the joy of John that he could 
at last cry, “ Behold tjie Lamb of God, which taketh 
away the sin of the world!” 

The fountain for sin and uncleanness is now 
opened in the house of David. The Christ of prom- 
ise is become Immanuel — God with us. The least 
one in this new kingdom is greater than the great- 
est who enjoyed only its promise, and saw it afar 
off in the twilight of types and shadows. They saw 
it indeed, but knew not its nature or its power; 
they did not even know its name, but it was God’s 
promise, the nature of which could not be known 
till the fullness of the times. Its name is the king- 
dom of heaven. 


CHAPTER X. 


Mr. Wesley’s Views. 

I DEEM this a proper place to introduce Mr. 

Wesley to my readers, not that his views are 
binding, but that the weight of his great name may 
embolden a timid reader to think more favorably of 
a cause such a man advocates. In a sermon on the 
text “Not as though I were already perfect,’’ etc., 
he speaks as follows: 

“Nay, to produce one for all, did not even 
David, ‘the man after God’s own heart,’ commit 
sin in the matter of Uriah the Ilittite, even mur- 
der and adultery.’’ It is most sure he did. All 
this is true. But what is it you would infer from 
hence? It may be granted first, that David in the 
general course of his life was one of the holiest men 
among the Jews; and secondly, that the holiest men 
among the Jews did sometimes commit sin. But if 
you would hence infer that all Christians do and 
must commit sin as long as they live, this conse- 
quence I utterly deny. It will never follow from 
those premises. Those who argue thus seem never 
to have considered that declaration of our Lord, 
Matthew xi. 11: ‘Verily I say unto you, Among 
them that are born of women there hath not risen 
a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding, 
he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater 

(83) 


84 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


than he/ I fear, indeed, there are some who have 
imagined 4 the kingdom of heaven’ here to mean the 
kingdom of glory, as if the Son of God had just 
discovered to us that the least glorified saint in 
heaven is greater than any man on earth. To men- 
tion this is sufficiently to refute it. There can, 
therefore, no doubt be made that the kingdom here 
(as in the following verse, where it is said to be 
taken by force) or the 4 kingdom of God/ as St. 
Luke expresses it, is that kingdom of God on earth 
whereunto all true believers in Christ, all real Chris- 
tians, belong. In these words, then, our Lord de- 
clares two things: First, that, before his coming in 
the flesh, among all the children of men there had 
not been one greater than John the Baptist, whence 
it evidently follows that Abraham, David, nor any 
Jew was greater than John. Our Lord second^ 
declares that he which is least in the kingdom of 
God (in that kingdom which he set up on earth, and 
which the violent now began to take by force) is 
greater than he; not a greater prophet — as some 
have interpreted the word, for this is palpably false — 
in fact, but greater in the grace of God and in the 
knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we 
cannot measure the privileges of real Christians by 
those formerly given to the Jews. Their ministra- 
tion (or dispensation), we allow, was ‘glorious,’ but 
ours 4 exceeds in glory/ so that whosoever would 
bring down the Christian dispensation to the Jew- 
ish standard, whosoever gleans up the examples of 
weakness recorded in the law and the prophets, and 
thence infer that they 4 who have put ou Christ ’ 


Mr. Wesley's Views. 


85 


are endued with no greater strength doth greatly 
err, neither 4 knowing the Scriptures nor the power 
of God.’ ‘But, however, in other places,’ contin- 
ues the objector, ‘ Solomon does assert plainly there 
is no man that sinneth not/ (1 Kings viii. 46; 2 
Chron. \i. 36.) Yea, ‘there is not a just man 
upon the earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.’ 
(Eccles. vii. 20.) I answer without doubt thus it 
was in the days of Solomon, and from Solomon to 
Christ. There was then no man that sinneth not. 
Even from the day that sin entered into the world, 
there was not a just man upon earth that did good 
and sinned not until the Son of God was manifested 
to take away our sins. It is unquestionably true 
that ‘ the heir as long as he is a child differeth 
nothing from a servant,’ and that even so they (all 
the holy men of old who were under the Jewish 
dispensation) were during that infant state of the 
Church ‘in bondage under the elements of the 
world/ ‘But when the fullness of the time was 
come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, 
made under the law, to redeem them that were under 
the law 7 , that v T e might receive the adoption of sons;’ 
that the} 7 might receive that grace w r hich ‘ is now 
made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour 
Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath 
brought light and immortality to life through the 
gospel.’ (2 Tim. i. 10.) ‘ Kow 7 therefore they are 

no more servants, but sons; ’ so that whatsoever w 7 as 
the case of those under the law, w 7 e may safely say 
with St. John : ‘lie that is born of God sinneth not/ 
“ It is of great importance to observe, and that 


86 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


more carefully than is commonly done, the wide 
difference there is between the Christian and Jew- 
ish dispensations; and that ground of it which the 
apostle assigns in the seventh chapter of his Gospel, 
verse 38, etc. After he had there related those 
words of our blessed Lord, ‘He that believeth on 
me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall 
flow rivers of living water/ he immediately sub- 
joins: ‘ This spake he of the Spirit, ov£[MJTXov Tid’d- 
6avpv gl 7tL(yev versa sic avrdv , which they who should, 
believe on him were afterward to receive. For the 
Holy Ghost was not yet given, because Jesus was 
not yet glorified.’ How the apostle cannot mean 
here (as some have taught) that the miracle-work- 
ing power of the Holy Ghost was not yet given, 
for this was given. Our Lord had given it to all 
his apostles when he first sent them forth to preach 
the gospel. lie then gave them power over unclean 
spirits to cast them out; power to heal the sick; 
yea, to raise the dead. But the Holy Ghost was not 
yet given in his sanctifying graces as he was after 
Jesus was glorified. It was then, when ‘he as- 
cended up on high and led captivity captive/ that 
he ‘received those gifts for men, yea, even for the 
rebellious, that the Lord God might dwell among 
them/ and when the Day of Pentecost was fully 
come, then first it was that they who waited for the 
promise of the Father ‘were made more than con- 
querors over sin by the Holy Ghost given unto 
them/ 

“ That this great salvation from sin was not giv- 
en till Jesus was glorified, St. Peter also plainly testi- 


Mr. Wesley's Views. 


87 


ties : ‘ Receiving the end of your faith, even the salva- 
tion of their souls/ he adds, 1 Peter i. 10-12 : ‘ Of 
which salvation the prophets have inquired and 
searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace p. e., 
the gracious dispensation] that should come unto 
you; searching what, or what manner of time the 
Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when 
it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and 
the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was 
revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us 
they did minister the things, which are now re- 
ported unto you by them that have preached the 
gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down 
from heaven 5 — viz., at the Day of Pentecost, and 
so unto all generations, into the hearts of all true 
believers. On this ground, even ‘the grace which 
was brought unto them by the revelation of Jesus 
Christ/ the apostle might well build that strong 
exclamation : ‘ Wherefore gird up the loins of your 
mind; ... as he which hath called you is holy, 
so be ye holy in all manner of conversation.’ 

“Those who have duly considered these things 
must allow that the privileges of Christians are in 
no wise to be measured by what the Old Testament 
records concerning those who were under the Jew- 
ish dispensation; seeing the fullness of time is now 
come, the Holy Ghost is now given, the great salva- 
tion of God is brought unto men by the revelation of 
Jesus Christ. The kingdom of heaven is now set up 
on the earth, concerning which the Spirit of God 
declared of old (so far as David from being the pat- 
tern or shadow of Christian perfection): ‘He that 


88 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; 
and the house of David as God, as the angel of the 
Lord before them.’ (Zeeh. xii. 8.)” 

I have undertaken to furnish reasons for this re- 
markable state of affairs that constitutes the chief 
difference between Mr. Wesley’s theorv and the 
theory of this book. 


CHAPTER XI- 


Temptations of Christ. 

E VERY nation has its honored fields of battle 
and its days of martial glory. Christianity 
has its Gethsemane and its Calvary. Waterloo, 
Wellington, and Blncher are the synonyms of En- 
glish and German glory. Christ and Gethsemane 
are the inscriptions of the Christian battle-flag. 
Washington and Yorktown made the stars and 
stripes. Jesus and Calvary originated the songs of 
redemption and the declaration of independence 
from the power of Satan and the throne of death. 
Gethsemane and Calvary! What scenes! What 
memories! Christ preparing for death, for the last 
great battle with the powers of sin! It was the 
epoch of earth and heaven. With his little band 
of apostles he had retired to the olive shades of this 
garden to meditate and pray. He knew he must 
die the next day. The evening waned, midnight 
drew on, the heavy olive-branches drooped with 
their burden of dew, the starlight straggled through 
the foliage, and played on the brook below. All 
was silent. While the heart of Jesus was breaking, 
and sorrows threw their waves over his soul, he 
knelt in silence at the Father’s feet and breathed 
his dying prayers. Never had he experienced such 
depression of spirit. The very soul was dark and 

( 89 ) 


90 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


languid. Ilia hands were chilled, while cold, blood- 
like drops of sweat rose upon his brow. lie was 
sorrowful even unto death. He broke the silence 
with a voice tremulous and feeble, saying: “ My soul 
is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death.’’ lie seems 
to have thought he was dying then. Certainly he 
was near the point. This declaration was enough 
to awaken the profoundest sympathy and interest 
on the part of his disciples. But if the Master was 
illustrating the power of love divine by enduring 
for man the greatest sorrows, surely the disciples 
were also illustrating the inertia and stupid im- 
mobility of humanity by their sleeping and careless 
mood in the presence of such sorrows. Their sleep 
was unnatural, and was caused providentially to set 
forth a lesson for the Church. Peter, James, and 
John had been selected and invited by the Master 
to accompany him to the solitude of Gethsemane to 
keep the sad vigils of his last night of human sor- 
row. It was a great distinction. Jesus placed all 
confidence in them, and even revealed to them all 
the sorrow of his soul. Never before had he given 
sign of distress on his own account. He had wept 
for others, but now he weeps for himself. “ My 
soul,” he cried, “is exceeding sorrowful, even unto 
death.” Who can so frame that sentence as to 
bring out more clearly the deep affliction of his souf? 
The night wore away; the darkness of midnight 
approached. But it was a darker midnight within 
his soul. He felt the need of greater solitude. He 
had three companions, loved and trusted brothers, 
but the internal commotion of the spirit was too 


Temptations of Christ. 


91 


great for the pleasures of earthly companionship. 
He needed help. His friends could not furnish it, 
and were no longer available for companionship. 
He would seek a greater solitude, where he might 
speak with the Father more freely. “ Bit ye here 
while I go and pray yonder , ’’ he said, as he pointed 
to some overhanging rock or shaded nook in the 
cleft of the mountain near by, where he could be 
alone. This was enough to have banished sleep from 
his friends. Surely they could not but watch his 
receding form in the dark, and see his shadowy 
outline as he fell on his wearied knees. How could 
they sleep! One hour he pleaded with God. “O 
my Father,” he said, softly breathing the words 
from his trembling lips, while his tears mingled 
with the midnight dews — “0 my Father, it it be 
possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless, not 
as I will, but as thou wilt.” It was as if he said: 
“ Father, the human family must be saved. I am 
willing to die for it, if there is no other remedy. 
But O Holy Father and Spirit of knowledge in- 
finite and power supreme, let me inquire in a coun- 
cil of the Trinity if there is no reserved method with- 
in our infinite resources whereby this can be accom- 
plished without the terrible ordeal through which 
I am passing? yet, if it be the will of God in Trinity, 
then it is also mine.” Arising from the posture of 
praver, he returned to his companions; and O human- 
itv! humanity! Quietly stretched on the dewy 
sward, his three friends are sound asleep. He 
looks down on their helpless slumber with pity. 
Probably he thought: “Here I am in the throes of 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


92 

death, and the Church is lying in thoughtless slum- 
ber.” The cause of God fighting a battle of death, 
and the soldiers all asleep. But he pities them. 
“ What,” he gently upbraids them, “could ye not 
watch one hour? ” “Ah,” he said, “I know why it is; 
your spirits are with me, ye indeed do sympathize 
with me, but the heavy clod of earth deadens your 
interest. Watch and pray, lest ye enter into temp- 
tation.” He again sought the retirement of a deep- 
er stillness, and once more prayed. The prayer was 
the same. It was the crucial moment. God an- 
swered it. The death-seal which Satan had stamped 
on the human race could be broken by no means 
save by the death of the Son of God. He must die. 
To know the measure of heavenly love and gentle- 
ness of the Father’s answer to that passionate mid- 
night prayer of his weeping Son the Church must 
wait the revelation of a higher order of language 
than earth has yet known. Perhaps heaven may 
have a language of sufficient capacity to give some 
idea of the tenderness with which the Father as- 
sured his Son that, despite the cries and prayers of 
a broken heart, “ Thou, my Son, must die.” Out of 
this travail comes the new testament and the ever- 
lasting covenant of peace — a worthy issue of suffer- 
ings so sublime. I would remark here that most 
people think that the devil ceased to tempt Jesus 
after the temptation in the wilderness; but this is 
a mistake. The Bible says that the devil left Jesus 
for a season — that is, he left Jesus until he had an- 
other chance to assail him. Jesus was tempted all 
his life, and his greatest temptation was in Geth- 


Temptations of Christ. 


93 


semane. It is not in the line of this book to treat 
of the Trinity. What we now say of Jesus is said 
with reference to his humanity. He was indeed 
very God, but that postulate was never intended by 
theologians to interfere with the other great paral- 
lel postulate — that he is also very man. However 
the union may be, the individuality of human nat- 
ure is not questioned nor to be interrupted. As 
man, however sinless and pure, he was the true heir 
of its frailties, sin only excepted, being the son of 
Mary, who was human. He grew in stature, in 
knowledge; was the subject of fatigue, hunger, 
thirst, tears, sorrow, pain, and finally death. Could 
he as man have sinned? The question shocks us; 
but beyond all doubt, when Jesus undertook to re- 
deem the world, he took upon himself the liability 
to fall. This was the great contingency of redemp- 
tion. Thus the Scriptures view it. I grant he 
would not sin ; that he had no disposition whatever 
to sin, and that if he should ever incline to dcrso it 
would come from an outward temptation, as did 
Adam’s sin, and not from any inward disposition. 
It would result from an act of the mind, from no 
impulse and inward disposition. He was tempted. 
I think that all the actions of Jesus depended on his 
human will: therefore, when he was tempted he 
was tempted as man is tempted, and he overcame as 
man overcomes. When tempted Jesus willed that 
he would resist the temptation; then, lest his hu- 
manity should be overcome, he willed that the God- 
head within himself, who hitherto had remained a 
passive spectator, should come to his aid. The God- 


94 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


Lead came, and the temptation was overcome. Thus 
it was man’s will and God’s power with Jesus; it 
can be man’s will and God’s power with us, if we 
avail ourselves of prayer. The Calvinistic theory 
of this temptation places Jesus in the vise-like grasp 
of fatality, and the entire story of the temptation, as 
seen in the light of that theory, would be like this: 
Satan approaches Jesus with sundry propositions, 
under the impression that he is really assailable. 
But while the great enemy moves in his best diplo- 
macy, Jesus smiles and says: “It is useless. I cannot 
yield. Your propositions do not reach me. I seem 
to you to be human, but that is only a semblance of 
humanity. I am in fact God, which has so modi- 
fied the human that it is no longer human in the 
matter of temptation. I cannot yield; I have not 
the power of will to yield.” If such were the style 
of the temptation, then the word temptation is a 
misnomer; it was only the appearance thereof, and 
not a genuine specimen. But the narrative claims 
it to be genuine, the Church admits it, and Paul so 
far believed it that he drew comfort from it and 
commended it to all Christians as a source of solace 
and strength when they are likewise tempted. He 
goes even farther, and declares that the reason Jesus 
became subject to temptation was that he might be 
in a situation to fully sympathize with his tempted 
brethren. Hebrews ii. 18 and iv. 15 reveal this 
truth clearly. But if the Calvinistic theory, which 
is so largely held by Arminians, is really true, then 
Paul was mistaken, and Jesus but mocks when he 
bids us draw strength and comfort from his own 


Temptations of Christ. 


95 


heroic example in resisting temptation. I rejoice 
to find many leading Arminian divines now break- 
ing away from the Calvinistic manacles that still 
bind some of our brethren. Dr. Deems, in his 
“ Life of Jesus,” very strongly supports the the- 
ory that Jesus had power to sin and was liable to 
fall. 

As long as there was the least possibility of Je- 
sus’ failure there was an equal possibility of fail- 
ing to offer his great sacrifice, and in that case there 
could, in the very nature of things, be no perfect- 
ed salvation. And now we confront the whole 
question. Human redemption was to be worked 
out by man — the Son of man — and there was a 
contingency. Therefore, while God awaited the 
contingency he arranged a provisional system, 
to endure only till the trial hour was past, and 
when Jesus cried on the cross, “ It is finished,” 
the contingency passed away and redemption be- 
came a completed system. Not a completed fact in 
individual cases, for each one must now receive the 
system. It is a completed system only. Hence 
“the law was but the shadow of good things to 
come.” 

Since all things depended on the faithfulness of 
Jesus, all things must wait the action of his life. 
This being true, we are prepared to see just such 
state of facts as exists in the Old Testament — every 
thing inchoate, every thing incomplete. The light 
of that day was but the reflection of the sun upon 
the morning skies before its rising — a shadow of 
the great coming event cast before it. 


96 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


In this view of Jesus* temptation, his labor, trials, 
temptations, suffering, and death appear important 
beyond computation; and they are lovely and 
dear to the believer. But if he, in pursuance of 
fate, the child of an arbitrary destiny, appeared in 
earth to perform his role — which only appeared to be 
human sorrow and trials, from which he could not 
shrink or escape because of a pre-ordained and ar- 
bitrary power — the love and tenderness of the occa- 
sion do not touch me and move my tears and grate- 
ful heart. For he did nothing as man, and as God 
he suffered nothing within the comprehension of 
human conception. But when I behold him a man 
indeed — tempted as I am tempted, suffering as I suf- 
fer, bleeding as I bleed, and dying as I die — I know 
what is meant. I can interpret his sighs, his tears, 
his anguish. I know T how he felt when he was 
tempted; I know how by the Father’s help he 
overcame it. When he cried, “ My God, my God, 
why hast thou forsaken me?’’ I know he felt as if 
forsaken; he thought it was. so. He trembled, bled; 
and prayed, endured the awful anguish all alone. Hu- 
man nature was submitted to the final test. Adam 
had failed. Would the second Adam fail? This was 
the all-absorbing question of heaven and hell. The 
spirits of the holy dead of all ages stood breathless, 
while angels’ harps lay mute on their motionless 
arms. It was the crisis of ages. Here on one man 
the. destiny of millions dead and to live was sus- 
pended. Jesus was being tried. He knew this. 
He was perfectly conscious of the place he was fill- 
ing and the infinite importance of the test he was 


Temptations of Christ. 


97 


enduring. If be failed, earth would be enveloped 
in moral darkness eternally, and to Satan’s reign 
there would be no end. Death \yould be eternal. 
All is ruined if be fails. Need we wonder that the 
pulse-beat of life in sun and earth should cease, 
and nature, mute with universal silence, watch and 
weep as Jesus dies? And all this sorrow he endured 
when he could have chosen the shorter way, as 
Adam did, to ease and earthly glory, with death 
and joy in mixed proportions dealt as Satan deals 
to every one. But he was faithful, and it was the 
faithfulness of man, trembling, weeping man, and 
not the stern compliance of fatality. To the date 
of his crucifixion he had not died nor shed one drop 
of blood. Until his birth he had not suffered, not 
one sigh escaped his lips, and a tear had never 
dimmed his eyes. Suppose he had yielded to temp- 
tations, as the first Adam, and thus have failed to 
furnish the great sacrifice through which Abraham 
was to be saved. In that event what would be the 
status of the patriarch ? If holy in the evangelical 
sense, he would not be lost, and if saved it must be 
without Jesus’ blood. If in heaven by virtue of Je- 
sus’ blood, he must stay there despite the failure, or 
he must now step down and out. It was to prevent 
just this state of things that salvation was only a 
matter of promise to them, and that promise always 
on the implied condition that Jesus is faithful. At 
Hebrew xi. Paul begins with Abel and comes down 
the entire line of all the ancient worthies, and de- 
clares that “these all died in the faith, not having 
received the promises, ” “that they without ns should 


98 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


not be made perfect/’ For perfection — a clean mor- 
al nature — was to be wrought in us by the Holy 
Ghost, and he w T ould baptize man only after the 
divine sacrifice had been actually offered in the per- 
son of Jesus Christ. 


CHAPTER XII. 


Tho Epistle to the Hebrews. 

IIIS book was written expressly, it seems, to 



JL set forth the difference in the two great cove- 
nants. A mistake on this point by many Hebrews 
gave Paul great anxiety. Those who failed to note 
this sharp distinction weakened the operations of 
grace under the second by alloying it with the effete 
formulae of the first covenant. The Judaism of 
Paul’s da} 7 either repudiated the second covenant 
as appearing in Jesus, or so blended the two as to 
deprive the latter of its chief strength. (Gal. iii. 1, 2.) 
Everywhere Paul fought this error in all its forms, 
and finally wrote this elaborate argument the better 
to set forth the real distinction between the two 
covenants. lie begins his argument with the proph- 
ets, and rises through several chapters to the seventh 
verse of the eighth chapter to the following climax: 
“For if that first covenant had been faultless, then 
should no place have been sought for the second. 
For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the 
days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new 
covenant with the house of Israel and with the house 
of Judah : not according to the covenant that I made 
with their fathers, in the day when I took them by 
the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; be- 
cause they continued not in my covenant, and I re- 


199 ) 


100 


Behold the. Lamb of God! 


garded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the cov- 
enant that I will make with the house of Israel aft- 
er those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws 
into their mind, and write them in their hearts,” 
etc. Having settled on this prophecy of Jeremiah 
as his exact distinction between the two covenants, 
he never loses sight of it. This prophecy he quotes 
several times, and builds his entire argument on its 
clear announcement. 

The covenant of the fathers was a covenant of 
works, with Moses as the mediator. Under it the 
intellect had been addressed. The law was written 
on tables of stone and in books. The second was 
a covenant of grace, with the law fixed in the re- 
newed nature by the Iloly Spirit, not that there 
was no grace under the former, but the grace of 
the latter was so full that the first was not grace 
taken by comparison with the copious supplies of 
the second. Under the second the moral feat- 
ures of the law would not be annulled; they would 
still exist, but the law would have the superlative 
advantage of being written in the heart and mind 
as well as in books. The intellect should not be 
less instructed, but the heart should be infinitely 
more instructed. The Holy Ghost would not only 
move on men, but would b}^ the special terms of this 
‘•better covenant” dwell in man — would sanctify 
the whole nature by an inward operation and constant 
indwelling, whereas the law had formerly sanctified 
the body only, and instructed the intellect by a 
merely outward process. That was formal; this 
should be a real work done in the nature, and not 


The Epistle to the Hebrews. 


101 


merely on the outward person of man and in the 
intellect. 

In this Epistle the subject is touched from every 
stand-point, but at all times the apostle keeps in 
view the fact that he is comparing two distinct ad- 
ministrations — one having been fulfilled and passed 
or was then passing away; the other having just 
then come into power, and was now unfolding its 
sublime mysteries. 

The Epistle to the Hebrews is a continuous com- 
parison of the two covenants of Scripture. It as- 
sumes that whereas God spake to man under the 
first testament in an. irregular way by the prophets, 
he now speaks to us by the uniform or perfected sys- 
tem of the Son, by revelation of the Father to our 
hearts by the Holy Ghost through Christ. lie puts 
Moses and Jesus in comparison, and sets spiritual 
Jerusalem over against Sinai. Melchisedec and 
Levi are contrasted, the former being greater be- 
cause Abraham paid him tithes; and the Epistle 
makes Melchisedec the type of Christ, who is 
therefore superior to both Melchisedec and the 
Levite; and then passes you rapidly from the reign 
of these transitory epochs to the unending priest- 
hood of Jesus, with a tremendous emphasis on the 
enhanced glory of the latter as a reign of pure spir- 
ituality. 

The apostle concedes great glory to the former 
testament; but, however glorious, its light wanes 
when brought in contrast to the reign of Jesus. Nor 
does he mean to minify or degrade the former; he 
only means to contrast, and in doing so the bright- 


102 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


ness of that day becomes dark as it stands against 
the glory of the new testament. Hence he says: 
“ If therefore perfection were by the Levitical 
priesthood, (for under it the people received the 
law,) what further need was there that another 
priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, 
and not be called after the order of Aaron/’ He 
also says there is “ a^isannulling of the command, 
ment’going before for the weakness and unprofita- 
bleness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, 
but the briuging in of a better hope did ; by the which 
we draw nigh unto God.” Now Paul sums up his 
argument and arrives at the final conclusion : “ For 
if that first covenant had been faultless, then should 
no place have been sought for the second. For 
finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days 
come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new cov- 
enant with the house of Israel and with the house 
of Judah.” 

The fourth chapter of Galatians is conclusive of 
this argument. How Paul’s great soul yearned for 
the spiritual welfare of the Galatians. “ My little 
children,” he lovingly exclaims, “of whom I travail 
in birth again till Christ be formed in you, . . * 

tell me, ye that desire to be under the law,” and 
then proceeds with his famous allegory of Agar 
and Jerusalem as representing the two covenants — 
that of law or works and that of grace in Jesus 
Christ. 

In the infantile state of the Church “we were 
children, were in bondage under the elements of 
the world; but when the fullness of the time was 


The Epistle to the Hebrews . 


103 


come, God sent forth his Son,” that we might 
thus “ receive the adoption of sons.” There is a wide 
difference in the two covenants, and the difference 
is that of grace — that between “elements of the 
world ” and the grace of “ adoption.” 


CHAPTER XIII. 


Paul’s Retrospect. 

T HE Epistle to the Hebrews seems to have been 
written expressly in support of the theory of 
this book. Yet, strange to say, it is in this very 
Epistle that we tiiid language which is most relied 
on to antagonize the view. Does Paul contradict 
himself? Ho; the solution is at hand. But let us 
first state the apparent contradiction. Hebrews xi. 
4: “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excel- 
lent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained wit- 
ness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts : 
and by it he being dead yet speaketh.” This text is 
most confidently relied on, because Abel is declared 
to have had faith, was righteous, and had God’s wit- 
ness, and by it still speaks. But the case of Abra- 
ham, referred to in the same chapter, is still stronger, 
if possible; for while he sojourned “he looked for 
a city which hath foundations, whose builder and 
maker is God,” and “ he staggered not at the promise 
of God through unbelief.” “ These all died in faith, 
not having received the promises, but having seen 
them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and em- 
braced them, and confessed that they were strangers 
and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such 
things declare plainly that they seek a country. And 
truly, if they had been mindful of that country from 
104 ) 


Paul 's Retrospect , 


105 


whence they came out, they might have had oppor- 
tunity to have returned. But now they desire a bet- 
ter country, that is, a heavenly: wherefore God is 
not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath 
prepared for them a city.” Moses esteemed “the 
reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures 
in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompense 
of the reward.” “ Women received their dead 
raised to life again: and others were tortured, not 
accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a 
better resurrection.” Now, these passages and 
many others indicate a most evangelical character 
of trust, such as would bring every attainable bless- 
ing of Christianity; yet twice in the very chapter 
from which all these quotations are taken Paul de- 
clares that these worthies died without having re- 
ceived the promise. At the thirty-third verse it is 
declared that by faith they “ obtained promises,” 
and yet they died without having received the 
promise, “God having provided some better thing 
for us, that they without us should not be made per- 
fect.” Whatever this deferred promise is, it relates 
to “perfection ” — the perfection of the last testament. 

Three epochs are marked in this chapter: First, 
the patriarchs who did not inherit literal Canaan. 
These died without receiving the promises. Here 
promise is used in the plural. Secondly, those pa- 
triarchs who did inherit literal Canaan — such as 
Gideon, Barak, and others, received the secular 
promises. Many of God’s minor promises were re- 
alized by them, because the faith of their fathers 
in God’s promise led them to this land, and they 


106 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


enjoyed its rest by faith in God. But there is yet 
a promise anciently made which has not been real- 
ized. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob died before any 
promise was realized except minor ones. The prom- 
ise, the original promise is divided into three classes 
and is a trinity. “Blessing I will bless thee.” 
This is the original form. Illustrated by history, it 
meant, first: “ I will give thee an heir, and he shall 
be also a typical heir — type of Christ.” This is 
Isaac. It meant, secondly: “I will give a nation 
which shall spring from this heir, the land of Ca- 
naan, and that shall be a real inheritance where 
your children shall rest; but it shall also be typical 
of an inheritance of a spiritual nature — a state of 
the soul where the children of promise shall find 
rest to their souls.” Thirdly: “I will cause to be 
born a son of thy blood who will also be the Son 
through whom I will send the Holy Ghost into the 
hearts of believers to make actual the rest which 
the land of Canaan shall typify .- ” All these thoughts 
were included in the original promise to Abraham. 
These promises, with their realities and types, were 
fulfilled in the order of providence. Abraham, 
Isaac, and Jacob died without the promises. Here 
all the promises are referred to. Gideon, Barak, and 
the others enjoyed the literal promises, but, like 
the illustrious patriarch, died without the last prom- 
ise — the great spiritual blessing. Now why does 
Paul, use the apparently contradictory language? 
He stood in the day of fulfillment. The plan of 
God was now fully developed, and in the light of 
this development he looks back by way of review- 


Paul's Retrospect. 


107 


ing the past, and reads these wonderful providences 
in the light of fulfillment. 

In an eminent sense Jerusalem was a city of 
foundations whose Maker and Builder is God, and 
for just such a city Abraham looked. Finally, his 
faith was rewarded and his triumphant hosts came 
by the way of Sinai to the great city of foundations. 
It was no longer a wandering city of tents and 
camps, as his own and the Israelites of the forty 
years had been, but a settled city — one built on a 
solid foundation. “ But,” says the apostle, as he car- 
ries the mind forward from the temporal to the 
spiritual — from the figure to the things signified — 
*• but ye [the Christians] are come unto Mount 
Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heav- 
enly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of 
angels, to the general assembly and church of the 
first-born, which are written in heaven, and to God 
the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made 
perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new cov- 
enant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh 
better things than that of Abel.” This is the cul- 
mination of all the great figures and formulae of pre- 
vious ages. The Christian state is a city of God 
built on the Bock of Ages, typified by Jerusalem, but 
with a better foundation than the old Jerusalem had. 

Referring to the rock smitten by Moses, Taul calls 
it a spiritual rock, and declares it was Christ. This 
of course is a figure. The rock was literally a 
rock stricken by Moses, from which , literal water 
flowed, but it imported Christ. All these things, 
like the prophets referred to by Peter, were “min- 


108 


Behold the Lamb of God ! 


istrations ” to ns, and not to them, so far as the spir- 
itual lessons are concerned. They did not know 
the spiritual import. It was not needful that they 
should know it. They needed water. God gave 
it to them. This satisfied them and established a 
faith that prompted obedience, by which faith they 
were justified. Thus when all, dead and alive, came 
to the fullness of the times, to the risen Lord, these 
received the promise “that they without us should 
not be made perfect.” They were justified, but not 
inwardly holy; therefore “the spirits of these just 
men were made perfect,” at the same time the per- 
fecting system was given to the living. 

Paul was not speaking to Abraham or the dead. 
He was writing to living Hebrews. Some of them 
doubted the spiritual nature of the new covenant. 
To convince them of it, and to break their blind 
devotion to mere forms and ritual, he showed that 
God had always had in view the establishment of 
this state of things, and proved it by the history of 
symbolic religion. It was not his design to state 
how much Abraham and the patriarchs understood 
of the spiritual import of the events and customs of 
their day, but to show what design God always had 
in them. 

When he says “these all died in faith, not hav- 
ing received the promises,” he was speaking in 
part of the earlier patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and 
Jacob; and of these he declares that, having seen 
the promises afar off, they “ embraced them, and con- 
fessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the 
earth. For they that say such things declare plainly 


Paul's Retrospect. 


109 


that they seek a country. . . . But now they 

desire a better country, that is, a heavenly.” “ Say 
plainly ” — that is, plainly as figures — not that the 
patriarch had uttered it, but they pursued such a 
course as made them symbolic of those who under 
the second covenant seek a better repose than a mere 
outward conformity to God — seek a heavenly char- 
acter of rest. Moses esteemed “ the reproach of 
Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt.” 
The reproaches which Moses endured turned out in 
the final development of things to be thoseof Christ. 
The reproaches chosen by Moses, whatever he may 
have thought of them at the time, were in fact the 
reproaches of Christ, as we now plainly see. 

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob saw the promises 
afar off, and embraced them. This was all the re- 
sult of confidence in God’s promise. God had 
promised Canaan; .they believed their posterity 
would eventually acquire the possession of the land 
to which the patriarchs held title by the gift of God. 
The possession was far off’, but they embraced the 
promise, not the actual possession. 

The apparent contradiction of Paul is prominent 
also in the matter of Abel's sacrifice. By it he says 
Abel obtained witness that “ he was righteous, God 
testifying of his gifts,” and yet he says “the blood 
of sprinkling” under the new or second covenant 
“speaketh better things than the blood of Abel.” 
I suppose reference is had to the blood of Abel’s 
sacrifice. But what did the blood of Abel speak? 
If it were sufficient to make him righteous in the 
New Testament sense of the word, it certainly spoke 


110 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


as much as the blood of Jesus. The theory I com- 
bat is that “ the blood of Abel’s sacrifice declared 
Abel’s faith in the coming blood of Jesus, and that 
therefore Abel realized the benefits of that blood at 
the time he offered his gift.” But the blood of Abel 
was materially defective since the “ blood of sprink- 
ling” under the second covenant “speaketh better 
things.” His faith did not extend to the blood of 
Christ; if it had, it would have spoken the same as 
did the blood of Christ. Abel’s sacrifice was typical 
— that is freely admitted — but Abel’s faith was not 
founded on the typical import of his sacrifice, but 
on the words of God spoken to him concerning his 
present status. Jesus had no blood at that time. 

Abel’s righteousness consisted in faith in God 
and rectitude of life conformably to the knowledge 
he had of the divine will. But the witness which 
God gave him was, like his righteousness, external 
— probably by fire, or a voice, or angelic presence, 
as was the custom of the age. See chapter on Cain 
and Abel. 


CHAPTER XIV. 


Paul’s Retrospect (Continued). 

T UE offering of Isaac was undoubtedly an en- 
sign of the coming tragedy, a profile of the 
scene of Calvary. But it is like a “ diamond in the 
rough ” — experienced eyes are required to detect its 
real value. The mirror of prophecy was opened in 
the person of Isaac, the altar, and the ram. But 
will it be denied that Abraham could find an easy 
solution of this strange event without a knowledge 
of its prophetic importance? It was a cardinal prin- 
ciple of his religion that every command of God 
should be obeyed. God commanded him to offer 
his son in sacrifice. It was a test. It was an aw- 
ful test — the greatest that could be required of man. 
But after the pleasant sequel had relieved the vet- 
eran patriarch could he not find a thorough solution 
of the affair in a knowledge that God was testing 
him? So satisfactory was this explanation that I 
doubt if a thought of further inquiry entered his 
mind. But why should God test him by an inci- 
dent so extraordinary? For two reasons. First, to 
teach us that, however holy and intimate our rela- 
tions with God, the Christian in all ages of the 
Church may expect fiery trials, and that God will 
open a way for escape if we are faithful. Secondly, 
Jesus was to be tested. How great the trouble and 

( 111 ) 


112 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


temptation of his test let the agony and sweat-blood 
of Gethsemane declare. The first of these reasons 
was well known to Abraham after the crucial hour 
had passed away. The latter, as well as the former, 
is well known to us. 

But did not Jesus say: “Abraham rejoiced to see 
my day, and he saw it, and was glad? ” He did. But 
the Jews responded, and said: “Thou art not yet 
fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? ” He- 
replied: “ Before Abraham was, I am.” In the form 
of the W-ord he saw Abraham’s day, and the patri- 
arch saw his day. But the new form in the second 
covenant, with its lights and glory, was not seen by 
Abraham except in suppressed and unintelligible 
views as they then appeared to him. Things that 
were dark and shadowy to the eyes of the first cove- 
nant are clear and bright to the eyes of the second 
covenant, because they are seen in their fulfillment. 
Paul looks back and describes from a better point 
of view than that from which the patriarchs and 
prophets looked. 

Surely the apostles who lived with Jesus— ate, 
slept, journeyed, and talked with him three years and 
six months — would know more of him than the pa- 
triarchs and prophets who lived hundreds of years 
before the incarnation. Jesus had adopted every 
. means known to language to discover himself to 
the apostles. He told the woman at the well of 
Sychar that he was the Christ; the apostles heard 
it, or had a restatement of it. He told Philip in 
the presence of the others that he and the Fa-, 
ther were one. lie told Peter that he was the 


Paul's Retrospect. 


113 


Christ — the Holy Ghost having already revealed it 
to Peter. His words, miracles, and acts declare 
his divine character. He even told the disciples 
that he would be crucified, who would do it, how it 
would be done, and that he would be in the grave 
three days and rise again, lie had carefully in- 
formed them that his kingdom would not be secu- 
lar, but spiritual; that his business would not be to 
control by law, but to spiritualize and apply law to 
the heart of man. He had told them plainly that 
after his resurrection he would send the Holy Ghost 
on them; that this Holy Ghost would be the Spirit 
of truth, the Spirit of law; and he as plainly told 
them that, notwithstanding he had been thus ex- 
plicit, he knew they did not comprehend fully what 
he told them, but when he the Spirit of truth is 
come he will ‘‘bring all things to your remem- 
brance, whatsoever I have said unto you,” by which 
he meant that they would comprehend the spiritual 
import of all he had said unto them when they should 
be endowed with the spirituality of the second 
covenant; and they did not comprehend him till 
that event occurred. They resumed the fishing- 
nets when he died; they only “ thought it had been 
he who should have redeemed Israel.” Redemp- 
tion in their minds was political. One of them 
would not believe unless he could put his fingers in 
the print of the nails; and although women of their 
company, trusted friends, told them that they had 
seen the Lord, they would not believe it till they 
had verified the report by personal observation. 

Jesus had said: “ He that believeth on me, as the 
8 ' * 


114 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers 
of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, 
which they that believe on him should receive : for 
the Holy Ghost was not yet given ; because that Je- 
sus was not yet glorified.)’ , (John vii. 88, 39.) IIow 
could the patriarchs be glorified before Jesus was? 
The Holy Spirit had made prophets and wise men, 
and had inspired Samson and Gideon and Barak; 
but this was an inspiration, not the baptism of the 
jS"ew Testament. It was a different function of the 
Spirit of God. This is called baptism; that was 
not. The baptisms of the law were for cleansing 
purposes; but it was symbolic baptism, and the 
cleansing was symbolic. Whatever Was washed un- 
der the law was legally clean; baptism and wash- 
ing meant the same thing. But they were carnal, 
earthly, typical of the Holy Ghost’s cleansing. To 
be baptized by the Holy Ghost is to be made clean 
by the Holy Ghost, inwardly cleansed from sinful 
dispositions. It spiritualizes man and causes him 
to understand spiritual things. In this sense the 
“Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus 
was not yet glorified.” This language needs no com- 
ment. It has but one meaning, and that is not at all 
involved. It is plain. The apostles were as good 
men as the patriarchs. They had far greater privi- 
leges, knew more of Christ than they, leaned on his 
holy words in person, were wise, heroic, and strong- 
minded; and yet had not knowledge and faith suf- 
ficient to even credit the fact of the resurrection 
till they saw the risen Master with their own eyes. 
How could the patriarchs know and believe more 


Paul's Retrospect. 


115 


than these? The Holy Ghost had specifically re- 
vealed to Peter the fact that Jesus was the Son of 
God; and yet Peter could not believe that Jesus 
was to die, and actually rebuked his Master for ex- 
pressing such a thought. How could Abraham be- 
lieve more than the disciples? 

Put it is claimed that the atonement produced the 
effect of the baptism of the Holy Ghost in the hearts 
of the patriarchs by the faith they had in the sym- 
bols; that such knowledge of Jesus as the Chris- 
tian has was not needful; that faith in the symbol 
was sufficient. But there was as yet no atonement. 
Jesus had not died, and if a knowledge of Christ 
was not needful then it is not now, and John was 
mistaken when he said the Holy Ghost was not yet 
given. Jesus was. not then glorified. Ilis atone- 
ment had not been made, and this John gives as a 
reason why the Holy Ghost was not yet given. It 
should not be forgotten that Jesus did not then ex- 
ist. The Word did, but the Son of Mary did not. 
The Word was not the Christ. The Word must be- 
come Jesus first, that he might be human and there- 
by capable of suffering and death, in order that he 
might make an atonement between man and God — 
might be the Christ. Were the birth, sufferings, 
and death of Jesus nothing, that full salvation 
should be enjoyed before these had a being? The 
promise of these was sufficient as a foundation for 
a promised salvation, for the first covenant; but the 
realization of the promise was essential to a realized 
salvation — the glory of the second covenant, which 
followed the “ sufferings of Christ.” The Christ of 


116 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


the first covenant is so called only by a figure of 
speech. The Word became the Christ, and therefore 
was often referred to by New Testament writers as 
Christ even before he assumed the real character of 
the Messiah. By the same figure of speech he is 
often called David by the prophets. Paul, knowing 
that the Word of the Old Testament had already 
become the Christ of the New Testament — the suf- 
fering, dying, risen Son of God — looks back over 
the long line and views his march along the sym- 
bolic footway, identified him as the Word of the first 
covenant, and calls him “Christ,” “the Spirit of 
Christ.” So also he speaks of the gospel. It was 
preached before “ unto Abraham, saying. In thee 
shall all nations be blessed.” Of course it was 
the gospel, because it related to the “ Seed.” This 
was the promised Christ. But it was the gospel in 
the chrysalis form, in the form of promise only. 
We now see that the ancient form of the gos- 
pel called “Seed” is indeed the Christ. This Paul 
informs us. But did Abraham know it? Was not 
the language sufficiently earthly to raise in him no 
higher expectation than that his earthly seed or na- 
tions to spring from his blood would be of a highly 
moral and intellectual character, and this the lan- 
guage really did mean. But it meant still more — 
it meant Christ as well as nations. When the 
Church comes to understand that a material view 
of spiritual things is quite different from and far 
below a spiritual view of spiritual things it will 
be better prepared to understand the materialistic 
religion of the first testament as distinguished 


Paul 's Retrospect. 


117 


from the spiritual religion of the second testament; 
and it will also understand how a material view 
of spiritual things can produce an exalted life of 
ethics, while it is devoid of that strange power in- 
troduced into the soul by the baptism of the Holy 
Ghost. 


CHAPTER XV. 


Grace vs. Law. 

“ It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of 
the law to fail.” (Luke xvi. 17.) 

rnilERE was never a day of human existence 
JL when mau did not enjoy grace. The law itself 
was a form of grace. But for the purpose of dis- 
tinguishing two great epochs in the Divine admin- 
istration of the affairs of man, in which epochs the 
grace given in the latter was so much more abun- 
dant than the former, the holy writers have desig- 
nated the former as “ law ” and the latter as “ ^race.” 
Grace, however, was the author of the covenant of 
law, and law is the incident of the covenant of 
grace. The reign of law ended with the Christian 
Pentecost, and the reign of grace began. “ The law 
was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by 
Jesus Christ.” “Truth” is the development of 
grace, the true plan of salvation. 

It is not designed to affirm that the Mosaic system 
was false, but it was only a part of the truth. As 
far as it went it was true, but it did not go the 
whole extent of truth. Jesus is “ the way, the truth, 
and the life.” There is some truth in all systems of 
religion. In most of them there is also some false- 
hood. But Moses’s testament and Christ’s testament 
differ from all others, in that there are no falsehoods 
( 118 ) 


Grace vs. Law. 


119 


in them. Moses’s was partly truth, but in no sense 
false, because it was a part of God’s general plan. 
It was the law part. But Christ’s system, taken as 
a whole and as represented by Jesus, is truth — the 
truth, the whole truth — a system in which law and 
grace stand related as cause and effect. “ Grace and 
truth came by Jesus Christ.” Grace in Christ orig- 
inated law. The system called law was the advance 
shadow of the coming Christ. 

Up to this date the best form of piety was only a 
servitude. There were no children of God in the 
New Testament sense; they were servants or minor 
children. (Gal. iv. 1, 2.) But when Jesus brought 
in the reign of grace he gave believers power to be- 
come the sons of God. “ God hath sent forth the Spir- 
it of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father.” 

Who has not been impressed with the change in 
the form of addressing the Deity as one passes from 
the Old to the New Testament. Under the old he 
is God, Jehovah, the Almighty, the King. He is 
only partially revealed. The reserved relation of 
Fatherhood waited for the Christ of redemption. 
“Neither knoweth any man the Father, save the 
Son, and he to whomsoever the Son shall reveal 
him,” and the revealing process was made known 
when the Son, who, as the kingdom of heaven, was 
taken by violence and the kingdom was opened on 
earth. No doubt the anxious apostles listened with 
curious interest when Jesus taught them to say “ Our 
Father who art in heaven.” He was teaching their 
lips to utter what their hearts were soon to learn. 

The revelation of God to the believer as Father 


1*20 


Behold the Lamb <f God! 


by the Holy Ghost is the special glory of the reign 
of grace. The best of the Ten Commandments di- 
rected man to love God with all his heart. But if 
ihe Jew abstained from idolatry and kept the law, 
he had taxed the full power of his heart. lie was 
justified by that law. This is all the love the human 
heart can exercise toward God in its natural state. 
Jesus taught this as a part of the law. 

The Saviour was asked by a certain lawyer; 
“Which is the first commandment of all?” The 
Saviour promptly replied : “Thou shalt love the Lord 
thy God,” etc. That man greatly interested Jesus, 
who spoke kindly to him, and said, “Thou art not 
far from the kingdom of God ” — as if he said : 
“That law has brought you to its border.” But 
the kingdom of heaven means even more than loving 
“God with all thy heart,” and “thy neighbor as 
thyself.” It means that the Holy Ghost shall shed 
forth the love of God in your hearts, thus aiding 
the natural heart to love with greater intensity, and 
also to love one’s enemies as well as friends and 
neighbors. 

No instance of loving an enemy is recorded under 
the first covenant. That power is a New Testament 
gift, and the heart requires renewal and Divine aid 
to perform such a prodigious act. Jesus is the first 
of humanity that did it, and when the natural pow- 
er of human love is enlarged by the Holy Ghost 
man is conformed to the spirit of the Son of God, 
and can likewise love his enemies. Man’s natural 
love is itself spiritualized. Love is the fulfillment 
of law. What we love we do, and the doing is not 


Grace vs. Law. 


121 


grievous to us. But love itself must be sanctified 
by the Holy Ghost. 

Remember that God does not love sinners more 
since Christ’s death than before. But the actual 
atonement has so changed man’s relation to God that 
the grace appears more abundantly. Grace, therefore, 
in its abundant reign, came by Jesus Christ. Re- 
demption is the special grace given in sanctification. 

Jesus was so merciful while on earth preparing 
for this reign of grace, otherwise styled the king- 
dom of heaven, that some doubted if he was a friend 
of the law. The woman taken in adultery was 
brought before him for judgment to test his friend- 
ship to law. lie seemed not to hear the public’s 
cry. But they pressed vehemently. Then by a 
stroke of generous wisdom he laid bare the weak- 
ness of mere law religion: “He that is without sin 
among you, let him first cast a stone.” No stone 
was cast. Then it was that Jesus foreshadowed the 
glory of his kingdom. Looking into the culprit’s 
penitent eyes, he said: “ Woman, where are those 
thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?” 
Instead of condemning, they had all flown — fleeing 
from the lash of their own condemning consciences. 
Then with a gentleness all divine he said: “Neither 
do I condemn thee.” He did not mean to justify her 
sin. That he hated, but the sinner he loved. “ For 
God,” said he, “sent not his Son into the world to 
condemn the world; but that the world through him 
might be saved.” His business was not to make 
or to enforce law, but to recreate and put man’s 
nature in harmony with law, and that is salvation. 


CHAPTER XVI. 


Objections. 


HERE are many objections to the theory of 



this book, and some of them are of great 
weight. But I find them more easily disposed of 
than such objections as I can urge to an opposing 
theory. When we eliminate the last shreds of Cal- 
vinism from our beautiful Arminianism those ob- 
jections lose their strength, and the theory hereof is 
triumphant. 

Trained in the belief that the patriarchs enjoyed 
the power of the kingdom of heaven, and that the 
phrase “ as a lamb slain from the foundation of the 
world ” carried with it all the force and efficacy of 
the actually slain Son of God, it is difficult to break 
away from conclusions logically deduced from such 
premises. Among the objections referred to I pre- 
sent and respond to the following: 

1. “ It supports the doctrine of the popish purga- 
tory.” Purgatory is supposed by Romanists to be 
a place of torment where the unworthy dead are 
held subject to the prayers and masses of the Church ; 
that proper intercession to God in their behalf will 
avail and they will be saved, despite their unworthy 
life, and this purgatorial privilege will exist until 
the general judgment. But the reader will observe 
that the theory of this book is that the ancient holy 


( 122 ) 


Objections . 


123 


dead did not go to a place of torment, but to a place 
of security — a paradise — and were kept by the power 
of God. I do not describe the place, because there 
is no scripture that warrants it. And the reader 
will observe also that the ancient Christian was 
worthy, because he had complied with every re- 
quirement of the law and was justified and elected to 
salvation. He was elected, but not inaugurated. 
Election saved him, because it secured to him by 
divine promise the blessing of full and endless sal- 
vation, to be made real when Christ should come. 
There is therefore nothing of the purgatorial nat- 
ure in this view; and it will be further observed 
that this condition of things does not exist under 
the second covenant. 

2. “ It supports the popish and Baptist theory 
that a new Church was set up by Christ at his com- 
ing.” On the contrary, it admits that the Church is 
coeval with every age; but it holds that the Church 
is a very different matter from testaments and cov- 
enants, that the Church has existed under two tes- 
taments and covenants, and that it takes its nature 
from the covenant under which it existed; that under 
the first covenant the Church was carnal and religio- 
political, because that- was the character of the first 
covenant; that under the second covenant the 
Church is purely spiritual, because the second cov- 
enant is purely spiritual — the same Church, but 
exalted and refined by the baptism of the Holy 
Ghost under the second covenant and testament of 
Jesus Christ. 

3. “It recognizes no salvation before Christ.” It 


124 


Bt hold the Lamb of God ! 


recognizes a conditional salvation, conditioned on 
the death of Jesus. The holy dead were made se- 
cure .in their hope by election, and were saved when 
salvation came by Christ. 

4. “ It supports the Campbellite theory.” If to 
make the first covenant a systematic preparation for 
a full and complete reign of the Holy Ghost in the 
believer’s heart under the second covenant; if to ad- 
vocate and prove that the second covenant is pre- 
eminently a reign of pure spirituality; that convert 
sion, regeneration, and sanctification (a thorough 
renovation and renewal of man’s nature by the 
Holy Spirit in the heart purely by faith in Jesus) 
is Campbellism, then this book is eminently guilty 
of supporting that theory. It is really just the rer 
verse. True, the Campbellite theory does admit 
the first covenant to be non-spiritual as compared 
with the second covenant, ami that the baptism of 
the Holy Ghost did not come until after Christ’s 
death, but they immediately cloud their theory by 
affirming that this holy baptism was confined to the 
apostolic age, and succeed in bringing the Church 
down to a plane of mere law service, even lower 
than that which existed under the first covenant. 
They are confused and aimless in their theory of 
the first covenant, and utterly break down in their 
views of the second. Instead of making it an ever- 
lasting covenant, they close it with the apostles. 
The view herein set out makes a harmonious sys- 
tem, placing each covenant just where the Script- 
ures place it, and shows a gradual but systematic 
ascent in revelation from a dim promise in Adam 


Objections. 


125 


to the brilliant glory of an endless reign of light in 
the mind and heart under the never-ending testa- 
ment that is in the blood of Christ. 

5. “ It is not authorized by Scripture.” This of 
course involves the whole discussion. That texts 
may be found to support any theory will not be de- 
nied when those texts are but superficially consid- 
ered. It requires much patience and toil to test a 
theory. The whole Bible must be carefully read, 
and all the texts bearing on the theory must be care- 
fully compared, and the opinion in the case must at 
last rest on the preponderance of testimony. And 
when the theory is that which was in the Divine 
mind there will be found no text against it, except 
such as are taken out of the scope of the writer. 
The scope will in every case exhibit a beautiful har- 
mony with every true theory. 

6. “The theory is contrary to the prophecies.” 
These represent the death and resurrection of Christ 
as fixed events, and dependent on no conditions 
whatever. God knew his own plans, and made 
every thing that was future to be fixed facts of the 
economy of grace; so that Jesus was as a “lamb 
slain from the foundation of the world.” I cannot 
disregard the gravity of this objection. It has greajb 
weight; but its dignity and force are derived more 
from our association with Calvinism than from its 
intrinsic merit. Boast as we may of Arminian free- 
dom, the sad truth remains that there are some Cal- 
vinistic shackles still riveted on our limbs. 

Prophecy of course derives its knowledge from 
the foreknowledge of God, and can have no more 


126 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


of a controlling influence over the acts of man than 
the divine foreknowledge. But who among Ar- 
minians would assert that the foreknowledge of 
God makes a future event necessary? Yet those 
are the very persons who now make this. claim in 
favor of prophecy. But if prophecy does not make 
the future events certain, if it does not destroy the 
agency of the actor in future events, then it follows 
that a contingency exists in the facts prophesied of. 
The implied condition of human agency must un- 
derlie every thing. There is another view of the 
subject. The facts of prophecy are to be understood 
as the facts of a plan — anticipated facts, rather than 
accomplished or finished facts. Some things, how- 
ever, are set forth in prophecy as facts certain to be 
fulfilled. Such are those that are decreed. When 
God ordains that a thing shall come to pass that 
thing is certain. Peter says of Christ : 44 Him, being 
delivered by the determinate counsel and fore- 
knowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked 
hands have crucified.” Here we note two events : 
(1) the delivery of Christ into this world by the 
Father; and (2) the taking and crucifying him by 
wicked hands. The former was decreed, and must 
come to pass; but the latter was not decreed. The 
delivery was the act of God. The volition of Jesus 
as a human being was not consulted in this act. 
But the latter act — 44 ye have taken” — involves 
man’s agency, and was not included in the deter- 
minate counsel of love. The agency of Jesus and 
his enemies were to consummate the death of him 
who was delivered to man by the act of the Divine 


Objections. 


127 


council. This made the death of Jesus contingent, 
and contingency is implied in all the promises of the 
first covenant that related to the success and felicity 
of the second covenant. This construction of proph- 
ecy and the decrees of God are essential to harmon}^ 
between the first and second covenants and testa- 
ments. If contingent, the system of salvation could 
not be complete until the contingency passed away. 
The phrase “slain from the foundation of the 
world ” is far from being conclusive that the blood 
of the atonement was effective before the death of 
the Testator in the New Testament. It occurs but 
once, and that is in Revelation xiii. 8. The sentence 
is elliptical, and means no more than an allusion to 
his typical representations in the slain lamb of the 
symbolic covenant. He is likened to a lamb slain* 
The reason of this comparison lies in the fact that 
God had promised him to the world. And the 
promised Son is now under the first testament rep- 
resented by a bleeding lamb, and is therefore as a 
lamb slain from the foundation or beginning of the 
Christian cosmos . A rigid criticism would limit 
the phrase, if taken literally, to the cosmos of the 
Old Testament. But to avoid that character of con- 
troversy I rely on the argument that reference was 
had to his symbolic death in the lambs of the patri- 
archal and Levitical sacrifices. 

To insist that Jesus was really slain from the 
foundation of the world would be simply foolish. 
Of course he was not slain until Pilate slew him. If, 
then, the text does not refer to a real death, there 
could be no real atonement in the unreal death re- 


128 


Behold the Lctmh of God! 


ferred to. But what if the events prophesied of 
should be fixed and certain, and not subject to the 
contingences of human agency, that does not meet 
the argument of the theory of this book. How- 
ever sure and fixed the death might be in the plan 
of God, it was future to the first covenant, and 
therefore was not real under it. The only reason 
it was the subject of prophecy is that it was not yet 
realized. It could be spoken of only as a future 
event; hence the subject of prophecy. It was not 
yet an event at all — it was the promise of an event. 

7. “But the promise of God is certain. There- 
fore he could save the patriarchs and fathers under 
the promise as if the death had really occurred.” 
This objection i3 certainly true, if the death of Je- 
sus is not the cause of salvation. If salvation 
means no more than mere pardon (and God had 
arbitrarily determined that he would not forgive 
man unless Jesus died, and then promised his death 
to the world with the same certainty of occurrence 
as if already occurred), he could have saved man 
before that death; but if the renewal of the moral 
nature of the spirit of man is salvation, and the 
death and resurrection of Jesus have any philosoph- 
ical connection with it as with cause and effect, then 
the death must occur before the effect can be real- 
ized. In that case there could be only a temporary 
salvation based on the promise till the real could 
be effected in the blood of the promised One, and 
that is just what we see in the two great covenants. 

God’s promise is entitled to all the dignity of the 
Infinite Author, but even God’s promise is not 


Objections. 


129 


equal to God’s fulfillment of his promise. All the 
argument drawn from the greatness of God’s prom- 
ise falls to the ground in this controversy unless it 
be held that there is no difference between a prom- 
ise of God and the thing he has promised. The 
promise of salvation will make the believer hope- 
ful, but the fulfillment of the promise will make the 
believer pure. There is the difference. No salva- 
tion from sin was ever promised except in the sac- 
rifice of Christ; therefore the sacrifice must occur 
before the promise can be claimed as fulfilled. 

9 


CHAPTER XVII. 


Imputed Righteousness. 

B ECAUSE it is called imputed we are at once 
put upon inquiry as to its real nature. There 
are two characters of righteousness recognized in 
the Bible. Each of these is perfect in its kind ; 
they are in themselves complete. The one is im- 
puted righteousness, and the other is real righteous- 
ness. Imputed righteousness is not righteousness. 
It is a negative state produced by the non -imputa- 
tion of sin. Sin is considered as though it had no 
existence. The legal status of the sinner is changed 
in this character of righteousness, but the moral 
quality remains unchanged. I find imputed right- 
eousness in both testaments, but its status was some- 
what changed as it passed from under the first to 
the second covenant. It is fulfilled in the New 
Testament by becoming real righteousness — a con- 
dition of purity in heart. Imputed righteousness 
is a temporary condition — it is faith — taken in lieu 
of a holy nature, and is intended to endure only till 
the real can be obtained. This state, being tempo- 
rnry and imperfect, cannot save the subject, but is 
useful as an armistice under which permanent ar- 
rangements are made, by which man's heart is 
made pure. Purity of heart was not available un- 
der the first covenant, and therefore imputed right- 
030 ) 


Imputed Righteousness . 


131 


eousness was the only righteousness attainable at 
that time; and the pious one must await the com- 
ing of the Christ of the second covenant to be made 
spiritually righteous, which is real righteousness. 
Hence, under the first covenant, imputed righteous- 
ness was the best form of piety — it was the stand- 
ard. But under the piesent or second covenant it 
takes a lower rank only, however, because a higher 
rank has been revealed, but it is still temporary. 
Under the first covenant it lasted during the exist- 
ence of faith till death, and from death the imputed 
righteous one rested under an election of God to “be 
conformed to the image of his Son,” which confor- 
mation would occur after Christ’s death, for God 
foreknew them — that is, he knew before Christ 
came those who had been faithful, and these he did 
predestinate to “be conformed to the image of his 
Son.” But under the second covenant imputed 
righteousness endures but a moment. It is the 
first result of faith, and in this state the IIol\ r 
Ghost enters into the heart and conforms the be- 
liever to the image of Christ by so renewing the 
moral nature that the believer becomes like the 
Saviour — holy or righteous, capable of acts of 
righteousness, by which he will be judged. 

Since a carnal nature can do no more than accept 
the help that may be offered it, belief in Christ 
brings it under the law of God’s gratuity, and man 
is treated as if he were good, whereupon God sends 
the Holy Ghost into the heart, cleansing and mak- 
ing it pure. Then the believer is no longer good 
or righteous by substitution, but is so in fact. He 


132 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


is good. It is from this date that works become 
rewardable. When Jesus said, “ Why callest thou 
me good? there is none good but one, that is, God,*’ 
he was speaking under the first covenant to one 
who did not comprehend the true nature of Christ. 
“There is none good but one, that is, God.” Je- 
sus is God, therefore his remark did not apply to 
himself further than to teach the young man a les- 
son in Pharisaism, as if he had said: “ You think 
I am only a man, and yet you call me good. This 
is your Pharisaism: you think keeping the law 
makes one good. As compared with what will be 
when the kingdom of heaven is opened, there are 
none now good but God.” This was the view tak- 
en of the same subject by a prophet, and quoted by 
Paul. David, in Psalms v. 9, says: “For there is 
no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part 
is very wickedness; their throat is an open sepul- 
cher; they flatter with their tongue.” This Paul 
quotes in Romans iii. 13, and proves by it the gen- 
eral depravity of man applying to both Jews and 
Gentiles. In his comment he declares : “ There 
is none righteous, no, not one.” But it is evident 
that he is speaking of the natural man, who has no 
better means of being good than such enlighten- 
ment and aid as law may furnish; and this he 
pleads as a special argument in favor of a better 
covenant and revelation — the inward work of the 
Spirit as now found in Christ — for he says the law 
and the prophets were themselves witnesses of this 
bettor righteousness which Christ was to introduce 
at his coming. “By the deeds of the law there 


ImputfrJ Righteousness. 


133 


shall no flesh he justified in his sight: for by the 
law is the knowledge of sin. But now the right- 
eousness of God without the law is manifested, be- 
ing witnessed by the law and the prophets; even 
the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus 
Christ unto all and upon all them that believe; for 
there is no difference: for all have sinned, and 
come short of the glory of God; being justified 
freely by his grace through the redemption that is 
in Christ Jesus.” One must see at a glance that 
the apostle is here showing the relative value of 
righteousness by the law and that internal state 
formed by faith in the hlood of the atonement; that, 
although imputed righteousness made no one good, 
Jesus could and would make every one good who 
trusts him implicitly. 

The first mention made of imputed righteousness 
is by Taul. lie affirms it of Abraham, and says 
David spoke of it; but David did not call it im- 
puted righteousness. Paul gave the name; David 
only described it. “Blessed are they whose iniqui- 
ties are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not im- 
pute sin.” The non-imputation of sin is the cause 
of imputed righteousness. The sins are not forgiv- 
en in the sense of being purged away; they are 
only covered, not imputed, suspended. This ac- 
tion leaves the sinner in a singular condition. 
TTe is not good; he is simply not condemned. 
That is the nature of imputed righteousness. It is 
a natural condition arising out of the non -imputa- 
tion of sin, and this much the law provided for. 


134 


Behold the Lnruh cf God! 


This is declared by David to be a blessed estate; 
and so, no doubt, it is. But for it universal ruin 
would follow. David had the secret. The sin is 
only covered. The Holy Ghost had taught it to 
him. Whether David understood the import of 
the phrase he used is doubtful. Perhaps he 
“searched diligently,” and studied his own prophe- 
cy in an effort to comprehend what the “ Spirit of 
Christ which was in him did signify, when it testi- 
fied ” of this anomalous state of the mind. “ Cov- 
ered” — not taken away, but only covered. It re- 
mained for the Lamb of God to take away the sin 
of the w'orld. This righteousness, called “ imputed,” 
could only cover up. All the ceremonial cleans- 
ing and legal obedience of the day looked well, but 
under that surface-.covering the heart was found 
breeding and brooding the foul pollutions of sin. 
Still it was a blessed righteousness, because it was 
the best that could be done, and it was a protection 
against the wrath of God. But imputed righteous- 
ness was the result of a promised Christ. Until 
Christ should come and make believers really right- 
eous they should be deemed righteous for the 
promised Jesus’ sake, and spared till the Son 
should have time to complete the work. Under 
the first testament Jesus was only a slain lamb by 
comparison, and for that reason the righteousness 
was only comparative, and not real. The promise 
of Jesus had the effect of suspending divine judg- 
ment, but it did not have the effect of salvation. 
So imputed righteousness is the result of suspended 
judgment. God’s wrath and sentence of eternal 


Impaled Righteousness. 


135 


death are staid only because Jesus has undertaken 
to save sinners. So, also, under the second cove- 
nant, in the case of repentant sinners who believe 
in Christ, God imputes to them a righteousness be- 
cause their sins are covered under the Son’s holy 
sacrifice; and because of such imputation the Holy 
Ghost enters and renews, when faith is perfect. 
Jesus’ righteousness has not been transferred to 
anyone, and that is not essential to imputed right- 
eousness. The only sense in which his righteous- 
ness i3 transferred to others is the very remote sense 
of God’s waiting on sinners to become newly creat- 
ed, because Jesus in his righteousness has complied 
with all the demands of the Father. 

James says that Abraham was justified by works, 
and so he was. (James ii. 21.) Nor does Paul deny 
this. (Rom. x. 2.) lie only denies that Abraham 
was made righteous by works. He draws a sharp 
distinction between justification and righteousness. 
Justification did certainly exist under the law and 
the first covenant, but it fell short of righteousness. 
It is of the nature of imputed righteousness. Paul 
joins no issue with James. He joins issue with 
those who claimed to be righteous because they 
obeyed the law — who counted works for righteous- 
ness, without Christ’s atonement and the renewing 
of the Spirit. Paul admitted that “if Abraham 
were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; 
but not before God.” And that shows how im- 
proper it would be to make justification the same 
as salvation. For in that case salvation would not 
include the cleansing of the heart, for it is a gen- 


13t> 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


eral experience that obedience to law alone does not 
do that. So if an outward state — such as Abraham 
had, and as any one is capable of living even by 
one’s own unaided power — is salvation, then indeed 
there is no salvation. It is the sins of the heart 
that terrify us — the fountain within us. Abraham 
was justified by works, but it was not his justifica- 
tion that saved him, and it was not the ground or 
reason of his hope. Ilis faith was counted for 
righteousness. What righteousness he had was 
his own. He obeyed the law; that is, within the 
scope of human ability: that is mere manhood. 
Self-denial is a human act. This sort of righteous- 
ness is human and Pharisaical; and as the patri- 
arch had no better righteousness God accepted his 
faith in lieu of the real. But one who is renewed 
and made right by a power divine finds a right- 
eousness in nature far above that which merely 
obeys, or that which faith represents as in Abra- 
ham’s case. The “ old man is crucified with him, 
that the body of sin might be destroyed.” This is 
genuine righteousness. Imputed righteousness is 
provisional, and with the ante Christian people 
passed away and became real when the doors of 
the kingdom of heaven w r ere opened to them. But 
as a provisional remedy it still remains with the 
unconverted. When we believe, our faith stands in 
lieu of righteousness, and the Holy Ghost comes 
upon us to conform the repentant sinner to the 
character of the Lord Jesus Christ. 

The doctrine of imputed righteousness is an ex- 
pression of great mercy, but the sacrifice of Christ 


Imputed Righteousness. 


137 


is now offered, and better things are expected. But 
that sacrifice is only blood and death. Of what 
avail is that to God? Justice demanded it, and it 
was given, we are told. But why should it produce 
a better righteousness than law? and how shall it 
now be utilized for man’s benefit? It is the blood 
and death of one man. How are the many to be 
blessed by it? It is said that “ God’s law, which 
held all men in sin, is satisfied, and now man may 
be released from sin.” But sin is a condition as 
well as an act. Sin is indeed the violation of law, 
but this violation had established a condition or 
status , and the pardon of the sin did not change the 
status. Sin had affected the nature of the spirit, 
and disturbed the natural relations that had once 
existed between the soul of man and God. IIow 
could the death of one man, by a sacrifice of him- 
self to the demands of that violated law, affect the 
relations of all other men to God? The sacrifice 
of Jesus is extremely complicated. It was a sacri- 
fice, but it was much more than that. Its full 
power is not measured b} r the extent of suffering 
or the sanctity of the sufferer. There was in it an 
element of intermediation not in the nature of sat- 
isfaction only, but of mediumship; so that when Je- 
sus died a channel was opened in earth for the Spir- 
it of God, a line of communication was established 
between a believer’s heart and the Spirit of God; 
faith is a connecting line; the atonement is a satis- 
faction and expiation. But it is more than that; it 
is an arrangement by which the Deity can utilize 
the force of faith, and restore man to original right- 


138 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


eousness. Its psychological relations may never be 
fully understood, but the fact remains that the 
atonement made by Jesus Christ is not one of ar- 
bitrary demand of God because he- delights in blood, 
but is an essential part of a system governed by laws, 
as all things else are regulated. 

The object of the cross is redemption. Redemp- 
tion is restoration, and restoration is the righting 
up of human nature so that it will be good within 
itself — good in such exalted degree that it is fit- 
ly described as heavenly. This cannot be with 
merely imputed righteousness, and yet the imputed 
condition is essential to the perfecting of the real. 
In martial proceedings it would be called an armis- 
tice. During its pendency peace is permanently 
arranged. “ Therefore being justified by faith, we 
have peace with God.” Justification and imputed 
righteousness are correlated; in some important 
respects they are the same. The sinner is in this 
relation to Christ when the Iloly Spirit finds him 
a fit subject for his cleansing and renewing pow- 
er, and the justified one is adopted into the family 
God — born again. Before the advent of Jesus 
this result did not follow, but was deferred to the 
coming of Christ. How it follows the act of faith 
immediately. The believer is now justified or par- 
doned, and the Holy Spirit comes upon him imme- 
diately, and the believer is born of the Holy Ghost. 
He is now good, because he is renewed. He is now 
capable of righteousness, because he is righteous. 
Tie can now work, and his works are rewardable. 
By them he will be judged in the last day. 


Imputed Righteousness. 


139 

Now that the sinner is born again he finds himself 
conformed to the image of God’s Son. He is a new 
creature, and may become pure and right in all his 
being. The heart is right, the dispositions are once 
more heavenly. He is now qualified to do works of 
real righteousness. Now his works count for some- 
thing. Tie will be judged by them. Every reader 
of Scripture has seen that works are sometimes 
rated worthless, and sometimes exalted in merit. 
The Christian has been greatly perplexed and in 
doubt as to the status of his work. James takes up 
the true Christian, and demands work. Jesus de- 
mands work. Work, work, work is the ever- re- 
curring demand of the Scriptures. But works are 
worthless in the process of regeneration. They are 
valuable afterward. Receiving Jesus by faith is 
every thing in the matter of the renewal of nature, 
but when that work has been 'accomplished the 
child of God is set in the vineyard as a worker, 
and by his work he is to be judged. “Lord, when 
saw we thee a hungered, and fed thee? or thirsty, 
and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a 
stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed 
thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and 
came unto thee? And the King shall answer and 
say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch 
as ye have done it unto one of the least of these 
my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” If the 
Christian only understood the nature of his work, 
surely ho would never be indolent. The servant 
with one talent represented the idle Christian. Sad 
was his fate. He had not worked, and, although a 


140 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


servant, he was lost. The citizen who would never 
consent to his lord’s government was slain as a 
rebel. But the servant — the trusted employee — 
was judged as a servant, and was lost. But great 
success and joy crowned the labors of the diligent 
servants. “Let your light so shine before men, 
that they may see your good works, and glorify 
your Father which is in heaven.” 


CHAPTER XVIII. 


A Great Legal Hiatus. 

S IN cannot be discovered without light from 
God. Revelation is essential to its disclosure. 
“For when we were in the flesh, the motions of 
sin3, which were by the law, did work in our mem- 
bers to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we 
are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein 
we were held; that we should serve in newness of 
spirit, and not in the oldness' of the letter. What 
shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. 
Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I 
had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou 
shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the 
commandment, wrought in me all manner of con- 
cupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. 
For I was alive without the law once: but when 
the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 
And the commandment, which was ordained to 
life, I found to be unto death . ” (Rom. vii. 5 - 10 .) 
Some have supposed that the apostle referred to the 
ceremonial law of the Jews. But such forget that 
he specifies one of the Ten Commandments — “ Thou 
shalt not covet.” He refers to all the law which 
the Church has ever known. Does he represent 
himself or the human race in the sentence, “I was 
alive without the law once ? ” If he refers to him- 

041 ) 


142 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


self alone, when was he ever without the law? 
Never, except when he was an infant. Law as a 
personal rule of action cannot apply to infants. 
But the time in which he says he lived was before 
the commandment came; and he undoubted]} 7 re- 
fers to the giving of the decalogue at Sinai. In 
Galatians iv. 3 Paul represents himself as a child, 
and refers specifically to the childhood of Israel. 
All exegeses I have read of these scriptures seem 
strained, and ignore salient points of the text. 
The apostle was arguing the relation of law to the 
human race, and personates the race by himself. 
But when was the race of man without the com- 
mandments? Certainly until Moses we find noth- 
ing entitled to the appellation of commandments, 
if we take the emanations of Sinai and the code of 
Leviticus as a criterion. From Adam to Moses no 
uniform commands involving moral life are spoken 
of. “For until the law sin was in the world: but 
sin is not imputed when there is no law. Never- 
theless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even 
over them that had not sinned after the similitude 
of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him 
that was to come.” (Bom. v. 13.) Here the apos- 
tle fixes a period between the dates of Adam and 
Moses as being dissimilar to any other. Persons 
died who had not sinned after the similitude of 
Adam’s transgression. He could not allude to in- 
fants, for they do not sin after that fashion in any 
age; and why should those of that particular period 
be named? and wherein did the sins of the adults 
of that period differ from those committed by 


A Great Legal Hiatus. 


143 


Adam ? They differ only in similitude , in like- 
ness ; they do not favor each other. Adam had a 
command; he violated it. His was a strong sin, a 
guilty sin. These had no such command. From 
Adam to Moses there was no command except in 
rare instances, and they related more to secular 
matters than to morality, except in their symbolic 
import. Yet sin existed, but because there was no 
general law or command it was not imputed. It 
was weak; it lacked the strength of commands. 
Man had law, but no commands. Natural law was 
his guide. It was always wrong to take human 
life, unless perhaps in self-defense. This is a natu- 
ral wrong. Life taken cannot be restored, and the 
evil interferes with the rights of others. Common 
sense assures every one that it is wrong thus to kill. 
But who knew or could know that it was a sin 
against any other than the laws of nature, unless 
God should reveal it? Doubtless this is the reason 
of Cain’s crime against his brother. So far as he 
knew it was only a sin against Abel, and Cain knew 
not that God cared for the matter. I can kill my 
domestic animal at will. It is a sin against the 
rights of the animal, but until God reveals it I 
shall not feel that I have offended him; and the 
result justifies this conclusion. Cain knew he had 
done wrong, and feared. But he feared God far 
less than his kinsmen. As he had been vile enough 
to kill one, perhaps he would kill others, and this 
very natural fear on their part put Cain’s life in 
great danger. Only nature’s law had been violated. 
So Cain was left chiefly to the punishment of his 


144 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


fears. Sin was not imputed, because there was no 
revealed law. His banishment was a light punish- 
ment, and the mark was in mercy — a protection 
from the threatened vengeance of his brethren. La- 
mech slew a young man, and the only affliction he 
suffered was the dread of his fellows — God was not 
reckoned among the offended. Noah got drunk, 
but we read of no reproof. He certainly sinned 
against nature, and suffered, but he did not know 
that God took cognizance of such things. Abra- 
ham told a falsehood. It is vain to say it was not 
false because Sarah was his near relation. It was 
false, and intended to deceive. There can be no 
meaner quality of lying than a half truth intended 
to deceive. This, however, would only prove 
Abraham to be weak, if the sequel did not show 
that God not only did not take cognizance of the 
sin, but punished the other persons, and that for 
reasons of state, who really acted more nobly than 
Abraham. Lying was always wrong, dangerous to 
society, and injurious to business. But who knew 
that it was against God's will, except as nature de- 
clared it hurtful ? Sarah, a central Christian fig- 
ure, was guilty of falsehood in the very moment 
of being blessed by Jehovah. She laughed deri- 
sively, and denied it when so charged by the angel. 
The commandment had not come. If Abraham 
had lived after the utterances of Sinai, his noble 
adherence to duty would have subjected him to 
death rather than have been guilty of falsehood. 
In all these cases sin existed, but it was weak, and 
not imputed. “ When the commandment came, 


A Great Legal Hiatus. 


145 


sin revived.*’ That which before was only a mo- 
tion of the flesh — a temper, a passion, or an appe- 
tite — now took on the dreadful form of sin against 
God as well as nature. Those things against which 
man wrestled with weak arms he now finds are kill- 
ing him. They bring him directly under the curse 
of God. The law is dreadful, and the body is full 
of sinfulness. “0 wretched man that I am! who 
shall deliver me from the body of this death ? *’ 

Now the law-cursed man is driven by his hard 
school-master to Christ, lie looks up from the 
mangled mass of corruption within himself made 
plain by the light of the commandments, and sighs 
for relief. The prophets had foreshadowed the 
coming of Christ, and bid man’s hope revive. The 
symbols of the law declared: “There cometh one 
by and by represented by the sacrifices of your 
law, who will wash you in his blood, and change 
your vile body.” Paul looks up with grateful eyes, 
and finds him already come, and breaks forth in a 
rapturous song: “I thank God through Jesus Christ 
our Lord ; ” “0 death, where is thy sting ? *’ The 
little life he had between Adam and Moses — a free- 
dom from the denunciations of law — had died when 
the commandments came; but death had now lost 
its sting and the grave its victory through the tri- 
umphant blood of Jesus. Even the commandments 
were imperfect. Searching and killing as they 
were, polygamy flourished under them, and Moses 
for the hardness of the people’s hearts permitted 
divorce for the most trivial causes. Many.sins were 
not designated by the law. The “ hardness of their 
10 


146 


Behold the Lamb of God ! 


hearts” referred to by the Saviour was undoubted- 
ly the unregenerated state prevailing under the first 
covenant. Peter says, in “the times of this igno- 
rance God winked at” their unrighteousness. 

“ That no man is justified by the law in the sight 
of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.’’ 
Paul here quotes from Ilabakkuk a brief prophecy, 
in which the Christian doctrine of justification by 
faith is viewed from the ancient watch-tower of 
prophecy. The phrase, “in the sight of God,” is 
the key to this text. Justification did exist both 
under the patriarchal age and under the law — the 
Jewish economy — but it was not a perfect justifica- 
tion, such as in the sight of God could be pro- 
nounced good, very good, or pure. It was not in- 
tended for the divine scrutiny. It is only such 
justification as is found by' faith in Jesus and that 
stands connected with the purifying power of the 
Holy Ghost that God can look upon with perfect 
complacency. The legal is typical, temporary, and 
insufficient; the other is the “beauty of holiness.” 
“The law is not of faith.” But Paul does not 
mean by that sentence that one who obeyed law 
had nothing to do with faith, for he himself tells 
us, in Hebrews xi., that all the great characters of 
antiquity died in the faith, and that by faith 
they all achieved their triumphs, from Abel to the 
last conquering servant of the law. What he 
would teach is this: The law as a system anterior 
to Christ is considered distinctly from the system 
of faith in Christ since the advent. He is directing 
attention to the difference in the methods of the 


A Great Legal Hiatus. 


147 


two eras. The first he calls law; the latter he 
calls faith . The former had no power to purify 
nature, and therefore its justification would not be 
sufficient for “the sight of God;” the latter, dis- 
carding works or legal obedience, leaned with its 
simple faith in God as a justifying process wholly 
on the all-sufficient blood of Christ, and received 
from the holy Purifier that cleansing which makes 
one’s very nature presentable in the sight of God, 
makes us “ pure in heart.” “ Wherefore then serv- 
eth the law?” Paul’s argument seemed likely to 
excite in the reader’s mind this inquiry: “If then 
justification in the sight of God by the obedience 
of law cannot be obtained, 4 wherefore then serveth 
the law?’ or what good does law do?” He an- 
swers: “It was added because of transgressions, 
till the seed should come to whom the promise 
was made.” This text contains two points: the 
first, “it was added;” the second, “because of 
transgressions.” The people were full of sin. 
Numerous habits were practiced which were un- 
hoV in fact and in effect, but were not known by 
the people to be sins; therefore to instruct them 
and at the same time restrain them the law “was 
added.” Added to what? There was something 
already in existence to which this system of laws 
was added. It was the old covenant made four 
hundred years before with Abraham. That cove- 
nant contained the promise of Christ — the “seed.” 
Israel had sprung out of that covenant in the line 
of its development, and now Israel needed a thor- 
ough code of laws for its government, and as it was 


148 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


to be a religious nation its laws must embrace every 
feature of morals as well as police rules; therefore 
this system of law was added to the original prom- 
ise. Now because these laws had been the rule of 
moral life for the nation for many hundreds of 
years, the Jews concluded that obedience thereto 
was the sum total of religion; and so it was to 
them, if the obedience flowed from faith in God. 
But the apostle reminds them of its temporary 
character, and that it was not possible for the law 
to make them perfect; that as it had only been 
“ added,” so it would also be superseded as a sys- 
tem by spiritual religion, which would make law 
not as a system, but as a rule of life, more effective 
than ever, by fixing law in the dispositions of the 
heart. But because the law had been “ added,” we 
are curious to comprehend the nature of that sys- 
tem of religion which previously existed without 
the Jewish law. What sort of system was it? A 
religion without law? Not exactly that, and yet 
very nearly that. Not exactly, because law taken 
in its lasfor simplest definition means whatever 
rule of life one may have, whether simple or com- 
plex. If one has no better idea of God than the 
vague “Great Spirit” of the Indian, still that idea 
will formulate itself into some simple rule of life. 
Evidently then the religion of the Jews and all 
peoples before the laws of Israel were formulated 
contained some rules of morals, some discipline. 

When I assume, therefore, that the religion of 
the patriarchs before Moses’s day was without law I 
speak relatively only. But that they had no reg- 


A Great Legal Hiatus 


149 


ular system of revealed law — no system either of 
doctrines or of morals as revealed from God — is 
most evident. They believed in God, and accepted 
whatever of light was given them. But from 
Adam to Moses the commands of God were spe- 
cial and measrer. It was an administration of an- 
gels, Paul tells us, and in Acts vii. 53 we learn 
that even the law was given by angels. God’s 
government of men at that time was administered 
by angels, and each worshiper was honored by 
their visitation where a special duty was required. 
The commandment had not come, the law was not 
given, and the religion was exceedingly simple. It 
was to progress as revelation should be given from 
time to time. 


CHAPTER XIX, 


The Old School-master. 



HE law and the prophets were until John: 
since that time the kingdom of God is 


preached, and every man presseth into it.”' (Luke 
xvi. 16.) In Galatians iii. 24, 25 we read: “ Where- 
fore the law was our school-master to bring us unto 
Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after 
that faith is come, we are no longer under a school- 
master.” Paul discusses the law with freedom and 
ability., lie had studied law under Gamaliel, one of 
the greatest doctors of the nation, and became emi- 
nent as a Jewish lawyer himself. He uses the word 
law with some freedom, but never leaves the reader 
in doubt as to what system of laws is referred to. In 
Romans vii. 23 he calls the innate passions that co- 
erce one into sinful acts law , but one can readily see 
what is meant. In chapter ii. 25 of the same Epis- 
tle he refers to the whole Mosaic polity : “For cir- 
cumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law.” 
In Galatians iii. 2 the same law is referred to thus: 
“Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, 
or by the hearing of faith? ” One cannot doubt as 
to what law is described in the text at the head of 
this chapter. It is the moral as well as the cere- 
monial law of Israel. These are the agencies God 
used to educate the world up to the lessons that are 
(150) 


The Old School-master. 


151 


found in Jesus Christ. The first covenant and tes- 
tament are the primary departments of the divine 
system of moral culture. The second covenant is 
the graduating department. 

The word faith is sometimes used as the antithe- 
sis of law to describe the system as developed in 
Christ. So in Galatians iii. 23 we read: “But be- 
fore faith came, we were kept under the law, shut 
up unto the faith which should afterward be re- 
vealed.” The school-master which we are to dis- 
cuss in this chapter is the law — the whole Jewish 
economy, including the so-called moral law, the 
Ten Commandments. 

In a former chapter the “legal hiatus” was con- 
sidered. That period was the infancy of the hu- 
man race. The race was in the nursery. Angels 
attended them, guarding'and guiding. The little 
that was required was tenderly addressed, and man 
was carefully handled. Later, a portion of the 
race — tbe Jews — was advanced to the object-lesson 
school or kindergarten of the Israelitish ceremonies, 
symbols, types, and laws. Still later the whole race 
was advanced to the comprehensive curriculum ot 
faith in Christ. “But before faith came, we were 
kept under the law, shut up,” etc. Paul, in 1 Cor- 
rinthians ii. 7, 8, says: “We speak the wisdom of 
God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which 
God ordained before the world unto our glory; 
which none of the princes of this world knew: for 
had they known it, they would not have crucified 
the Lord of Glory.” That man was “shut up” 
when something was “hidden ” is clear. That this 


152 


Bihold the Lamb of God! 


hidden something was “ wisdom,” we are plainly 
told, and wisdom is defined by the same writer, in 
verse 4 of the same chapter, to be a “ demonstration 
of the Spirit and of power.” Here is a develop- 
ment of spirituality, and it is the same thing that 
was “ hidden ” in a former dispensation, when we 
were “shut up unto the faith which should after- 
ward be revealed.” Now if the “ faith " which had 
not yet come was identical as to time with the law, 
under whose tutelage we were, how can these vari- 
ous passages of Paul’s writings be explained? How 
could the “law” system operate at the same time 
the “ faith ” system existed, and yet make such dis- 
tinction as Paul here makes? 

Without a systematic arrangement of his subject, 
Paul discusses law under two different aspects: 
First, the law of Moses. This is the Jewish poli- 
ty, including the Ten Commandments, and was for 
the Jewish nation ; it is “ the law of sin and death.” 
Secondly, “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ 
Jesus.” This is the Christian grace of the new 
covenant. That system which Paul calls the 
school-master is the law and polity of the Jews, the 
statutes of Israel. lie sometimes calls it “ the com- 
mandments.” 

The function of law, taken in the sense of com- 
mandments, is to convince of sin, to point out sin. 
Paul says: “ The motions of sins, which were by the 
law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit 
unto death.” The law did not produce these mo- 
tions; it only disclosed their real nature. In the 
light of the revealed will of God these depraved 


The Old School-master. 


153 


“motions” were seen to be sinful. They produced 
acts denounced by the law. These acts wrought 
the guilt. Without the commandment sin was 
dead — dormant — as in Noah’s case of drunkenness, 
Abraham’s falsehood, Lot’s drunkenness and in- 
cest, polygamy, and all other crimes. They were 
weak. The sinner did not know he sinned against 
God, but only against nature. These reflections ex- 
cited the inquiry: “ Is law sin ? ” He answers : “ So 
far from being sin it is actually ‘spiritual.’” But 
the trouble in the case is that man is carnal, and 
the law, however spiritual in origin and nature, 
was only a rule by which to live, and as such had 
no renewing powers. In Galatians iii. 21 we learn 
how impotent law is. It could not create, renew, 
or regenerate. It could not give life. All it could 
do was to instruct and condemn. 

Religion, therefore, under the first covenant was 
simply conformity to a rule or law, while under the 
second covenant the law is said to be written in the 
heart. “The law and the prophets were until 
John : since that time the kingdom of God is 
preached.” The rule of holy living is fixed in the 
disposition of the soul under the kingdom of heav- 
en, and this is salvation — deliverance — a work 
wrought by the Holy Ghost. This is the promise 
of the Father which Jesus bestowed on his disci- 
ples, and which the patriarchs died without receiv- 
ing, “ that they without us should not be made per- 
fect.” 

The apostle, having set out the true function of 
law and stated its relation to the past ages, brings 


154 


Behold the Lamb of God ! 


his readers down to the moment when the subject 
of law changes its relation both to law and life by 
becoming a new creature, “ free from the law of sin 
and death; ” the law that gave sin its strength and 
brought about a consciousness of the soul’s spirit- 
ual death, and he declares this freedom is wrought 
through “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Je- 
sus. . . . For what the law could not do, in 

that it was weak through the flesh, God sending 
his only Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for 
sin, condemned sin in the flesh : that the righteous- 
ness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk 
not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.’ , The law 
is spiritual, but the life of mere conformity to its 
demands is as the shadow to the substance; where- 
fore Jesus informed the Jews that he had not come 
to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. But what is 
the fulfillment of law? I can readily understand 
the fulfillment of a promise or a prophecy, but the 
fulfillment of law involves different principles. 
Obedience to law is not fulfillment, since the law in 
its nature and origin is spiritual. Obedience can 
never fulfill it till the obedience is alike spiritual 
with the law, till the carnal subject becomes in 
spirit like the spirit of the law; for the law is two- 
fold in itself. It is “letter;” in its sense of let- 
ter or demands any one can obey it; but it is also 
Ispirit or spiritual. It is this part of law’s nature 
the carnal man fails to perform. Indeed, he even 
fails to perceive it, except as he is illuminated by 
the Divine Spirit. Jesus Christ came to fulfill the 
law by executing within himself the spirit of the 


The Old Schoolmaster. . 


155 


law, and to provide a system by which all mankind 
may do the same. Jesus kept the law, and that 
because his nature was in harmony with the nature 
of law. To do right was the deepest pleasure of 
his soul; and the system he provides for others is 
the sending of the Holy Ghost into the believers’ 
hearts, conforming them to the spirit of Jesus, 
making them of like nature with himself. Legal, 
zealous, bloody Paul obeyed the letter of the law; 
but converted, humble, weeping Paul possessed the 
spirit of the law. The law as a system made the 
soul feel its spiritual death by a disclosure of its 
hateful dispositions and by an arraignment of them 
at the bar of God, making the soul cry: “ O 
wretched man that I am!” This is the first testa- 
ment, the first covenant, the age of law. But Je- 
sus came, and with him the Holy Ghost, who is the 
spirit of law and of life, and this as a system makes 
the soul feel its spiritual life, for under it the soul 
is born again, and cries with thankfulness to God 
“through Jesus Christ our Lord.’’ 

Law forbidding the killing of human beings is 
kept so long as the overt act is not committed; but 
the jew might have entertained the deadliest dis- 
position of heart, and yet have been guiltless un- 
der the law, for the law forbade only the overt act. 
But if the overt act were wrong, of course the dis- 
position of the heart which led to the act was also 
wrong. But the law as such did not forbid the 
disposition ; it only forbade the act. But the dispo- 
sition is seen to be at enmity with the spirit of the 
law, although not forbidden by its letter. Why 


156 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


did the law not forbid the dispositions of the heart 
as well as the overt acts? Because man had the 
unaided mental power to comply with the letter, 
while he had no power whatever to abolish the dis- 
positions of the heart, and become spiritual as the 
law is; and God in mercy would impose no greater 
burden on him than he could bear. Therefore, as 
a mere provisional religions system and as a police 
polity, the first testament consisted only of legal 
demands, waiting with promise of a better covenant 
in the ages to come. The better covenant consists 
of power given by the blood of Jesus that sends the 
Holy Ghost into the heart to recreate and make 
holy the sinful dispositions of nature. “To them 
gave he power to become the sons of God.” The 
law says, “Thou shalt not kill;” but Christ says, 
“ Love your enemies.” The law says, “ Thou shalt 
not commit adultery;” but Christ says, “Whoso- 
ever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath 
committed adultery with her already in his heart.” 
When the heart-sin is gone the law is in the heart 
— the subject of the law is spiritual, as the law’ it- 
self is. 

The great purpose of God in the plan of salva- 
tion is to have man conformed to the image of his 
Son — made good in nature. While he waited for 
the fullness of the times he provided laws as the 
preliminary work. Let us suppose the wisdom of 
State to be assembled in the General Assembly. 
The rights of property have been disturbed by a 
certain liberty of an unorganized public. Men un- 
restrained by law take from each other as conven- 


157 


The Old School master. 

ience may suggest. But the public become tired of 
freebootiug, and determine to organize for self-pro- 
tection; whereupon the General Assembly conies 
into existence. A statute is enacted forbidding all 
from stealing. The members return home with 
great hope of security, now that larceny is made a 
felony. It was always a sin against natural law, 
but it now becomes a civil sin, because the munici- 
pality has declared it so. Protection is now as- 
sured. Not so; only those thieves were restrained 
who feared the penalties of the statute. The}’ were 
thieves still at heart. Fear restrained them, and 
the law justified them; it called them good. The 
evil being in the heart, the people are borne away 
frequently with temptation, and stealing goes on 
despite the law. The Assembly, once more in ses- 
sion, undertake to afford a better security. They 
pass an enabling act — a law designed the more ef- 
fectually to enforce the terms of their former larce- 
ny statutes. It is enacted that, “From and after 
this date no person shall desire to steal.” Now they 
have it, if only human power could put such law, in 
force. But God can do so. 

While God waited for the redemption that is in 
Jesus, he restrained humanity by statute only. It 
was a covenant of statutes or works. He found 
fault with it. But “if that first covenant had been 
faultless, then should no place have been sought for 
the second.” Not that the law did not come up to 
the divine expectation, but it was in fact faulty — in- 
sufficient for God’s final purpose. It was good for 
the purpose intended, for it was never intended to 


158 


Behold the Lamb of God ! 

make men perfect. It restrained only, and only 
such as feared God. “ The law made nothing per- 
fect.” So “in the fullness of the time 19 the great 
Legislator makes an enabling act. lie sends Jesus 
and the Holy Ghost with power to put the law in 
the heart as well as in the mind, to take away all 
desire to violate law, and to create in the heart 4 
desire to obey all of God’s laws. This done, the 
breaking of law is stopped effectually, for the spirit 
of the law is also the spirit of the subject. This 
view does not do away with law. “Do we then 
make void the law through faith? God forbid: 
yea, we establish the law.” Indeed, it is estab- 
lished when every disposition of the soul shouts 
“Amen!” to the thunders of Sinai, when the soul 
loves the things commanded by the law and hates 
the things denounced. But this blessed estate which 
ratifies and confirms every law of God is better than 
law. It does all that the law requires, and nothing 
the law denounces; but it rises to a plane the law 
has never aspired to reach. The law only required 
such things as human nature unaided by the Spir- 
it could do. The whole power of man was indeed 
called out by the law, but after all it was only 
man’s power that the law called into exercise. 
But grace as distinguished from law lifts the heart 
up to a heavenly plane, where a new power is 
brought to the soul’s aid; therefore greater deeds 
are done. Man can now love his enemy as well as 
his neighbor, and the lusts of the heart are elimi- 
nated. He could always love God with all his 
heart, which is evidenced by obedience, but now 


The Old School master. 


150 


the heart itself is renewed and filled by God’s love. 
The heart now has power to love God in a spiritual 
sense. 

The Psalms and evangelical prophets furnish 
some fine specimens of Christian experience, we 
are told, and therefore the privileges of Christian- 
ity must have been enjoyed by them. David was a 
prophet, and to separate his personal experience 
from his prophetic views has been the labor of 
centuries; besides, the strongest terms of ecstasy 
are applicable to the best ecstasy of any period. 
Although David had no experience of the raptures 
of the kingdom of heaven as developed after the 
Saviour’s incarnation, yet what he had was great 
to him, and we should look for his strongest terms 
to express it. Glory with him was glory, but it is 
not glorious now by reason of the greater glory of 
Christ. When he says, “ I will behave myself wise- 
ly in a perfect way,” he might with propriety mean 
no more than that he would not do as Joab did, or 
other men who departed from the law; and while 
he might mean no more than that, the Spirit who 
inspired the utterance might have had reference to 
the day when a better perfection should be attained. 
I say a better perfection, for complete obedience 
was the perfection of that covenant, while the per- 
fection of the second covenant consists in having 
the dispositions and affections of the heart con- 
formed to the spirit of Christ by the action of a 
power external to man — the Holy Ghost. When 
David prayed God to renew within him a right 
spirit and create within him a clean heart tljere 


160 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


can be no doubt but that the light of the law had 
convinced him that the heart and spirit were 
wicked; and that mere law could not change it; 
and, smarting under this conviction, he pleads with 
God for aid. But that is just the office of law. It 
kills; it convicts. It is a burden since it convicts 
and discloses sin, but has no power to relieve. Here- 
in is its function of school-master — it teaches the ne- 
cessity of a real deliverer like Jesus. But the fount- 
ain for sin and unclean ness was not yet opened in 
the house of David when that prayer was made. 
The commandment had come; the sin of the heart 
had been revealed; nature was shown to be cor- 
rupt; and, feeling the wretchedness of his condi- 
tion, David pleads for a better condition of heart, 
as Paul, in Romans vii. 24, who, under the terrible 
revelations of law, cried: “ 0 wretched man that I 
am! who shall deliver me from the body of this 
death ? ” If David had lived in Paul’s day, his 
prayer might have been at once realized. 

It should not be forgotten that every thing exist- 
ed under the first covenant that is found under the 
second. The difference is in nature, and not in 
name — “clean heart,” “right spirit,” “ righteous- 
ness,” “justification,” “holiness,” “sanctification,” 
“conversion,” “adoption,” “joy,” “peace,” “par- 
don,” “sacrifice,” and every other fact of the gos- 
pel — and it is from the language of the law that 
these terms were brought up into the New Testa- 
ment. Every thing was sanctified; but it was ac- 
complished by the sprinkling of the blood of beasts 
or birds, or water. But it was sanctification, never- 


The Old School-master. 


161 


tlieless, and symbolized the sanctifying process of 
the better covenant. They were justified; but it 
was the provisional edict of a merciful God, be- 
cause they had complied with temporary regula- 
tions. It was a justification in the blood of beasts, 
which, while it answered the purposes of God’s 
provisional government, also symbolized a better 
justification to be afterward found in the blood of 
Jesus Christ. They were made clean. This was 
wholly comparative — clean as compared with law- 
breakers and heathen; clean because, having done 
their duty by obedience, their consciences approved 
them. It related more to the purgation of con- 
science than to purity of inward nature. Con- 
science never rises higher than instruction. The 
law was their instructor, and when the law was 
complied with the conscience was clean. But an 
approving conscience does not signify a really right- 
eous heart. Paul persecuted Christians in “all 
good conscience.” So, however approved by con- 
science, the heart yearned for a perfection which it 
did not enjoy. 

David expresses great joy, and praises God in 
truly evangelical language: “Sing unto him a new 
song; play skillfully with a loud noise. . . . 

For our heart shall rejoice in him, because we have 
trusted in his holy name.” Those and many like 
rhapsodies are sung by the Psalmist. But all this 
is compatible with the low estate of his covenant. 
When he led armies against Israel’s enemies he 
trusted in God, and was victorious. Then his 
heart was glad; but all that is not the joy of the 
11 


162 


Behold the Lamb of God ! 


kingdom of heaven. The same terms used by holy 
Christians to express their highest raptures are oft- 
en used by the world to express their delights; but 
one will not conclude that the terms express the 
same thing. Joy is joy, whether enjoyed by saint 
or sinner; but the world’s joy is quite different from 
that of the holy Christian. The Pharisee “ thanked 
God;” but such thankfulness as is known to the 
heart of the sanctified Christian is a stranger to the 
thankful Jew or unconverted person. The terms 
of the old testament are the same as those of the 
new; but they mean more now than they meant 
then. Sanctification under the old testament 
“sanctifies to the purifying of the flesh;” but un- 
der the new it sanctifies to the purifying of the 
soul. When the Psalms and prophets are careful- 
ly studied it will be found that they were inspired 
utterances, whose far-reaching significance is real- 
ized only under the new testament in “the law of 
the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus.” 

That Antinomian exegesis which makes the 
Christian at once subject to the law of sin and “ the 
law of the Spirit of life” is a dreadful perversion of 
God’s word. Paul as a Jew under the old cove- 
nant did sin with the flesh, while his intellect rec- 
ognized the demands of God; but under the new 
covenant he became a new creature, whose body 
was brought into obedience as well as the mind, 
lie was made free from the law of sin and death by 
“ the law of the Spirit of life.” 


CHAPTER XX. 


A Case of Ancient Piety on the Border Line. 

S AUL of Tarsus was a Pharisee just as Abraham 
would probably have been had he lived in the 
day of the Pharisees. No fault can be found with 
Saul’s piety, judging him by the law. That he was 
zealous for the law only enhanced his piety. So 
had been Elijah and Moses. There was no hypoc- 
risy in Saul’s heart. In all good conscience he 
served the law of Moses. If he hated Christians, it 
was because, in his judgment, they were setting up 
a false God by the name of Jesus, one whom he 
believed had died the worthy death of an impostor, 
lie was now worshiped as God. Could the proph- 
ets of Baal and the priests of the grove be worse 
men? and yet Elijah deemed them worthy of capi- 
tal punishment, a just sentence of God’s law. So 
thought Saul ; and, acting as Elijah did with the idol 
prophets, he persecuted the Christians throughout 
Judea, and in his zeal for God even pursued them 
into strange cities. This would have been very 
good conduct if it had transpired under the old 
testament, when law-religion was the order of the 
day. But when the Holy Ghost had baptized 
Saul’s heart he found that, however zealous one 
ma} r be for God when actuated merely by an intel- 
lectual sense of duty, the heart can be very far from 

063 ) 


164 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


Him— a stranger to those heavenly dispositions cre- 
ated in the soul by the Holy Spirit. 

There is a line that divides whatever of difference 
exists between the old testament and the new tes- 
tament. All agree that there is a difference; there- 
fore all should agree that there is a line that marks 
that difference. The whole controversy turns on 
the question: “ What is the difference? ” 

Around this question theology has revolved with 
frantic indistinctness for centuries. Like moths 
around the electric globe, we have whirled and 
buzzed, bewildered with the intense glory, but 
could not tell what the glory is. “Arise, shine; 
for thy light is come ” was the key-note of the res- 
urrection anthem sung by the angelic choristers 
when Jesus broke the bonds of death and sat down 
on the mediatorial throne; when he placed his heel 
on the serpent’s head, and bid the nations look to 
his broken body now healed and elevated above 
the powers of Satan and death. He gave light to 
the world; but what did he do that it should be 
called “light?” what did he do that it should be 
called “spiritual” and not “carnal ? ” what did he 
do that it should be called the “ kingdom of heav- 
en ? ” what did he do that it should be called “ new,” 
a “birth from above?” what did he do that so af- 
fected the economic relations of man andJjrod that 
the Church and State should dissolve under its 
strange alchemy, and the moral atmosphere should 
clarify and separate as by magic the Church from 
the State? 

Our questions bring r.s to the dividing line, the 


A Case of Ancient Piety on the Border Line. 165 


former and the last days. The battles before Rich- 
mond were epochal events — a sort of dividing line. 
Here the contest for Federal supremacy ended. 
Lee surrendered. They were the last battles of re- 
bellion, the last lightning shocks that eliminated 
the doctrine of secession from American politics.* 
So the battle of Gethsemane and Calvary made the 
reconstruction of the soul possible, and with the 
rising Christ the light of a better government 
dawned upon the world — the holy Purifier of hu- 
man nature came to our relief. But it does not 
follow that all human nature was at once recon- 
structed because the battle of Calvary was fought 
and won any more than that reconstruction of re- 
bellious States followed immediately the battles near 
Richmond. But the victory was won, and now 
the redeeming or reconstructing process is put in 
motion. State constitutions in harmony with the 
Federal constitution must be adopted by each State, 
and received by the United States; and then recon- 
struction is complete. This is State redemption. 
So when Jesus died and rose again the battle for 
supremacy in earth was fought, the victory was 
won. But earth was not yet redeemed, was not 
yet reconstructed. The Spirit, which was lost from 
the soul, must return and abide before reconstruc- 
tion is effected. Each heart must call a conven- 
tion, adopt God as its constitution, send its delega- 

* This illustration deals only with the facts of history, and 
does not pass on the merits of either party to our late great 
internecine struggle. Right or wrong, some States were re- 
constructed after the decisive battles were fought. 


166 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


tion — Jesus our Advocate — as senator to the divine 
government by an act of faith; then God recognizes 
the union, and the Holy Ghost enters and abides. 
This is redemption; the soul is reconstructed. The 
first covenant was but an invading army holding 
the country by force till the inhabitants could have 
the opportunity of voting on another constitution — 
that of the kingdom of heaven. The first covenant 
was a military government; Jesus was fighting his 
way to Calvary and Golgotha. Abel, Enoch, Noah, 
Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, and Elijah were 
leaders of the advance corps. By hard battles Sa- 
tan was driven back till he reached Jerusalem. 
Here he marshaled all his forces; this was his cita- 
del. Moses had surrounded him, and had cast up 
forts against him; had mined under his wall, and 
was now ready to sap the foundation of his hateful 
government. 

At this crisis the great Captain, Jesus, came in 
person to lead the host in the last final charge; he 
fell. For three days it seemed as if Satan was con- 
queror; but while the friends of Zion were fleeing 
and helPs forces shouting “Victory!” from every 
hill-top Jesus revived, and came forth from death 
and blood panoplied with omnipotence. He smote 
through hell and death and Satan with a sword di- 
vine till Zion rallied and Satan fled, and Jesus held 
the field amid the shouts of the holy dead and the 
angels of God. Redemption is now possible; the 
new testament is in force. 

Now let Paul’s case on the border line illustrate 
the difference in the covenants. Paul was a Phari- 


A Case of Ancient Piety on the Bonier Line. 1 67 

see. That this sect was liable to much criticism one 
cannot doubt, for Jesus himself cauterized them on 
several occasions; but with all their faults they 
were the best type of piety in the world in their 
day. If they erected many traditions into law, and 
held them as more authoritative than the Bible it- 
self, it was only because of a morbid conscience and 
a misguided zeal. Evidently they did not mean to 
be wicked. Pharisaism was but a natural out- 
growth of a merely legal religion. Being zealous 
for the law, and having no abiding and leading 
spirit within them, their outward religion would 
naturally assume some of the dark aspects of the 
unchanged nature within them, and this was more 
apparent in some than in others. After John and 
Jesus had instructed and exhorted them, such of 
them as repudiated this instruction assumed a more 
hypocritical status than before. They had always 
been hypocrites — not malicious hypocrites; but be- 
cause their outward extreme pretense of holiness 
was intended by them to indicate an absolute in- 
ward purity, when every one of them knew that 
the heart was not pure in proportion as the out- 
ward show would indicate, therefore they were hyp- 
ocrites. 

Jesus knew that self-righteousness would be the 
chief obstacle in the way of the extension of the 
kingdom of heaven. He therefore made all possi- 
ble effort to convince his followers that their right- 
eousness must exceed that of the scribes and Phar- 
isees. He was preparing the public mind for the 
coming kingdom. lie was breaking them loose 


168 


Behold the Lamb <f God! 


from outward forms which they had long substi- 
tuted for righteousness. Tie showed them the in- 
sufficiency of self-righteousness. He was preparing 
them for the step upward which would be offered 
them after his resurrection, for one who is satisfied 
with the outward does not want the inward. 

The public had the greatest reverence for the 
Pharisees. Their doctrine was good and Biblical, 
their philosophy of the future was popular, and 
their piety was eminent. They did not believe 
any thing could be better; some of them were ex- 
tremely moral. Paul was of this school. He lived 
in all good conscience, his morality was excellent, 
and his piety was irreproachable. What more could 
be desired? what could Christ even do for him? 
Christ could not make him more moral, law-abid- 
ing, or devoted to the cause of the law of God 
simply by instruction. Suppose Paul to have seen 
Jesus, and even suppose him, like Peter, to have 
been a disciple, and learned from the lips of Christ 
as a believer, as the other disciples had, how could 
Jesus have improved him? He might have given 
him a better explanation of the prophets, and have 
explained the nature of the Messiah, but that would 
only have increased his stock of religious intelli- 
gence. It would have made no change in his mor- 
al nature. He might have reformed Paul’s Phari- 
saism by eliminating the traditions as matters of 
conscience .and duty equal with the Scriptures, but 
that would only have left Paul serving the law 
with all good conscience. In his defense before 
the public at Jerusalem he said he was “braught 


A Case of Ancient Piety on the Border Line. 169 


up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught 
according to the perfect manner of the law of the 
fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are 
this day.” In Acts xxvi. 5 he calls the Pharisees a 
“sect of our religion,” and declares they were the 
“straitest” of all the sects, and that he “lived a 
Pharisee; ” and elsewhere declares that this was 
done with a good conscience, and thus he lived till 
the “light” came upon him when on his way to 
Damascus. lie was first convinced that Jesus was 
the Messiah, and then he was baptized with the 
Holy Ghost. He is now a witness for religion in 
its two distinct grades, “law” and “grace” — out- 
ward and inward. Under the better revelation of 
God to his heart by the Holy Ghost he is radically 
changed, but is not a whit more zealoits or moral 
or obedient than before. He is only more spirit- 
ual because the Holy Ghost has reconstructed his 
moral nature and put all his dispositions in harmo- 
ny with the laws of God. He will never persecute 
anv one again. Legal Paul could kill Christians 
in all good conscience, but weeping, sanctified Paul 
can accept martyrdom for the very Jesus he once 
persecuted. Had he lived before Christ, his con- 
duct would have been highly commended because 
according to law, for the law was municipal as well 
as religious. It was both; the act that served the 
civil statutes of Israel served God, for under the 
Jewish polity God was served by serving the State. 
But the scepter had now departed from Judah. 
Caesar held it; the Jews were no longer a state. 
Shiloh had now come also. So, while Csesar on the 


170 


Behold the. Lamb of God! 


one side absorbed the State into a general empire, 
Shiloh on the other side was absorbing the Jewish 
Church into the spiritual empire, the kingdom of 
heaven. Caesar had allowed the Jews to retain as 
much of their old kingdom as was needful for their 
religious service and Church discipline. But the 
Jews did not regard it as an ecclesiastical polity. 
They clung to these things as to a state. They 
recognized nothing but a state in which God’s 
laws ramified every thing. It was therefore in 
their judgment God’s state. Caesar allowed them 
as much of self government as was needful to its 
religious functions. But under God’s state in for- 
mer days their courts had jurisdiction of life and 
liberty in the fullest civil sense. When the nation 
passed under the Roman state the courts were de- 
prived of all jurisdiction in criminal cases; but they 
might act as a court of inquiry. It was under these 
shreds of authority that Jesus was tried and finally 
referred to Pilate’s court for sentence of death. It 
was under the same that Paul persecuted the Chris- 
tians. Elijah lived when the Jewish state had full 
power, and under its authority he executed the 
priests of Baal and of the grove. Paul was doing 
just what Elijah did; but Elijah was right and 
Paul was wrong. They were under different cove- 
nants. Paul lived on the border line, and exhib- 
ited the best form of religion under each. Paul 
thought that Jesus was an idol, or at least claimed 
as God by his followers, and in his judgment Elijah 
had slain men for just speh an offense. 


CHAPTER XXI. 


The Faith of Abraham. 
npiiE patriarch Abraham is to be studied both as 
a man and a type. As a man he stood in the 
same relation to God as other men; as a type he 
held a very different relation to God. He was a 
just man, although a sinful one, for he was justified 
by faith. Justification, being an external work, 
leaves the heart unrenewed. His faith was reck- 
oned to him as righteousness. It was not real right- 
eousness; it was onlyamputed to him. It was not 
the righteousness of Christ imputed to him, for 
Christ had not then performed that righteousness 
which stands to-day for all mankind, that righteous- 
ness which avails while the gospel is preached to 
sinners. It was only his faith, it was purely a right- 
eousness of the outward man; but it answered the 
present purpose. God prescribed, and therefore.ac- 
cepted it, and gave Abraham a seal thereof. Cir- 
cumcision was the seal of the righteousness which 
he had. He had the righteousness by faith before 
he was circumcised. The righteousness was onlv 
legal and external; hence the external seal. When 
the internal righteousness came the internal seal 
was given. The righteousness of the second cove- 
nant is both outward and inward; hence the inward 
seal of the Spirit and outward seal of water. Cir- 

( 171 ) 


172 


Behold the Lamb of God ! 


cumcision, therefore, did not create the righteous- 
ness. lie had faith in God, and that was counted for 
righteousness; and being righteous, God set to it 
the seal of circumcision. He was justified outside 
of and before circumcision was originated, and here- 
in is the type. His faith was the type of the Chris- 
tian’s faith. We “walk in the steps of that faith 
of our father Abraham.” No law or command- 
ments had been prescribed to him, as was done aft- 
erward for the nation of Israel. Law became the 
rule of life for Israel, and obedience thereto was an 
expression of their faith in God. Abraham had not 
the law, and now the Christian does not come to 
God by law, but as did Abraham — directly by faith. 
Abraham’s faith in God was a type of the Chris- 
tian’s faith in Jesus Christ. No ceremonial appli- 
ances stood between Abraham and God; so also 
nothing of that nature stands between us and God. 
Abraham’s faith lacked the evangelical quality, 
which quality makes full and effective the Chris- 
tian’s faith. The Christian’s righteousness is inter- 
nal as well as external, so our “seal” is the Holy 
Ghost. It is this, with its heavenly effects, which 
makes the least one in the kingdom of heaven great- 
er than John or Abraham. 

The student has noticed two orders of priesthood 
— that of Melchizedek and that of Levi. They wece 
real orders, and at the same time both were typical. 
But Melchizedek’s order was of the same nature as 
Christ’s order. Melchizedek was priest by virtue 
of seniority, being presumably the oldest man liv- 
ing, the head of the race, lie is supposed to be the 


The Faith of Abraham. 


173 


patriarch Shem. Abraham paid tithes to him. It 
is reasonable to suppose that all nations, all good 
tribes honored him. In the sense of order Melehiz- 
edek s priesthood was the same as that of Jesus, 
but it lacked the evangelical element that distin- 
guishes the* priesthood of our Lord. So likewise 
the faith of Abraham, which he had being yet un- 
circumcised, was an ‘‘order” of faith, the faith that 
existed in connection with the “order” of Mel- 
chizedek’s priesthood. 

It should be remembered that the Scriptures rec- 
ognize three divisions of time — one extending from 
Adam to Moses, one from Moses to Christ, and the 
other embracing the Christian era. So the inspired 
plan of the temple contained three divisions — the 
court, or outer department; the sanctuary, or mid- 
dle chamber; and the holy of holies. These arose 
in sanctity one above the other as you approached 
the holy of holies. They were all holy, but the sec- 
ond was more holy than the first, and the third was 
the holiest of all. Considered as mere stone and 
mortar put in the form of a house, they were no 
more holy than any other stones and mortar; but 
they were now used for a lesson, and as they were 
designed to teach holy things they were to be con- 
sidered holy. They were only figures of holiness, 
the plan of which was furnished Moses by revela- 
tion at Sinai. There was but little form or sanctity 
attached to the outer court. That court represent- 
ed the priesthood and sanctity of Melchizedek’s or- 
der, the time extending from Adam to Moses; but 
in the middle chamber all the priests officiated and 


174 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


all the Israelites worshiped, and no Gentile was al- 
lowed to enter. This represents an advanced state 
of religion, for the commandments had now come, 
and a regular system of vicarious sacrifices was es- 
tablished. This middle chamber is the Mosaic pe- 
riod; it is the “ figure for the time then present/’ 
the reign of the Levitical priesthood. But into the 
holy of holies went the high-priest alone, and only 
once a year. Before entering he was required to 
offer sacrifices for himself and all the people, and 
extraordinary precautions were required to set 
forth as far as human preparation might the ex- 
tremely holy character of the third apartment. 
Says Paul: “The Holy Ghost this signifying, that 
the way into the holiest of all was not yet made 
manifest.” This set forth the reign of the Holy 
Ghost in our day. This is pre-eminently the holy 
age. At the crucifixion of Christ the veil of the 
temple was rent, and the secret of the old figure 
was fully m^de known on the Day of Pentecost, 
when the Holy Ghost came upon the people. 

Now under each of those periods represented by 
the three departments of the temple there was a 
peculiarity of priesthood, with a corresponding pe- 
culiarity of faith. Before Moses there was no le- 
gal and national priesthood; every nation recog- 
nized Melchizedek or his successor, whoever he 
was, and no law or formula of faith was prescribed. 
There were no vicarious atonements. Sacrifices 
then were only offerings — a method of worship. 
Paul calls them sacrifices in a later day, but that 
was revealed to him and not to them. Faith was 


The Faith of Abraham. 


175 


simple and unmixed with iegal requirements. It 
rested in God without any mediation of earthly 
sacrifices or circumcision ; but when we reach the 
period represented by the second apartment we 
note a great change in the outward status of relig- 
ion. Symbols and types and ceremonies are adopt- 
ed in great numbers, and they are all of special rev- 
elation, including the tabernacle. These all point 
to Christ. However little or much the subjects 
understood their far-reaching import, they were 
nevertheless revelations of Jesus Christ — Christ in 
symbol, type, and prophecy. By reason of these 
developments faith became more complex, and re- 
ligion assumed a holier form as regards ceremony 
and formula; and especially do we notice for the 
first time the introduction of the vicarious symbols 
in sacrifices and the scape-goat. From this time on 
law assumed immense proportions, and swallowed 
up the Abrahamic quality of faith; and this con- 
tinued till the end of the type system. But the end 
of the Levitical order of priesthood or type system 
came, and with it all the types, symbols, and cere- 
monies which “ sanctifieth to the purifying of the 
flesh” only, for “the law and the prophets were 
until John: since that time the kingdom of God is 
preached.” Then came a Priest after the ancient 
order of Melchizedek; our elder Brother, the first- 
born among many brethren; the second Head of the 
race, one confined to no nation, established by no 
human law, between whom and the people no sac- 
rifice, ceremony, nor even commandments should 
stand: a Priest who would enter the holiest place, 


176 


Behold the Lamb of G-od! 


even heaven, and would break away the veil of the 
temple, and bring the worshiper with him direct 
into the heavenly rest. All he demands is faith in 
Christ after the Abrahamic order, just as Abra- 
ham’s faith was in God — faith pure and simple — 
and of this “the Holy Ghost also is a witness to 
us.” It is here that Paul exults: “Having there- 
fore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by 
the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which 
he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is 
to say, his flesh; and having a high-priest over the 
house of God; let us draw near with a true heart 
in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprink- 
led from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed 
with pure water.” 

Abraham’s faith was of the right sort; it depend- 
ed on no intermediate conditions. In this it dif- 
fered from the law religion of a later period. The 
faith of the people under the law stood in the 
works of the law^~“ Thev that do these things 
shall live in them” — and, although their faith stood 
in God ultimately, it stood more directly in their 
works. In other words, faith and works were 
combined under the law age. In Abraham it was 
pure and Unmixed with works. This does not sig- 
nify that the admixture of faith and law in the law 
period was wrong; on the contrary, it was thus 
prescribed by the Deity. The addition of works to 
the old method of simple faith was in the line of 
development; it was another symbol. Faith in 
God and works were now to co-operate under a 
systematic arrangement. But as Abraham’s faith 


The Faith of Abraham. 


177 


was symbolic, so also the faith and works of the 
law were symbolic. I do not mean to say that ei- 
ther Abraham’s faith or the works and faith of or- 
ganized Israel were only symbolic, for they were 
real and existing conditions of justification to them; 
but while this is true, they were also symbolic as 
representing facts to be made known in the future. 
There is no merit in works as a condition of regen- 
eration or sanctification, but after the Christian is 
recreated — made new by the Holy Ghost — he is 
then capable of words and works by which he will 
be finally judged. He will then work as a result of 
faith. Now it was to symbolize this state of things 
that faith and works were united in the Jewish 
economy under the provisional system. So, in or- 
der to be regenerated, we must “walk in the steps 
of that faith of our father Abraham;” and, in or- 
der to be happily judged in the great judgment, 
we must also show the faith which sanctified us by 
careful and holy works. So Abraham’s faith, as 
an order of faith, as a faith that comes direct to 
God without any sort of earthly mediation, is a 
true type of the faith by which a sinner comes to 
the cleansing blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus 
the faith and works of the law symbolize the Chris- 
tian state. 

Abraham’s faith is an example to ns in some oth- 
er very important respects. He accepted as true 
every word God spoke to him either by priest, 
prophecy, or angels. No matter what, nor how 
unreasonable it might appear, he accepted it as 
true, without a doubt; he staggered not. Was he 
12 


178 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


called to separate himself from home and friends, 
to wander among strangers, apparently a prey to 
murderous and robbing bands? he obeys without 
question. Was a child of his blood promised when 
his wife was past age, and he himself old? he stag- 
gered not, but looked for the promise. Was the 
the child 'of that promise ordered as a victim of 
sacrifice? yet Abraham raised no question, but 
promptly bound the lad on the altar and lifted the 
awful knife. O such faith! If the Christian should 
have such faith in Jesus as this patriarch had in 
God, hardly a mountain could stand before him, if 
its removal were needed for the advancement of the 
Messiah’s kingdom. But while this patriarch is 
worthy of all honor because he honored God, he 
lived under a defective system, and therefore his 
character was defective as compared with such 
character as the new testament develops ; but his 
faith and piety were both developed to the full ca- 
pacity of the light he had. Like sunlight on a 
dark cloud is the sublime faith of Abraham against 
the background of his polygamous life. In some 
remarkable sense God suffered it because of the 
hardness of his heart. God winked at the igno- 
rance of that day. By “hardness of heart” the 
Saviour evidently referred to the un regenerate 
condition of the whole race under the first cove' 
nant. 


CHAPTER XXII. 


A Man of God Learning. 
"1VTIC0DEMUS was a counselor, a learned doctor 
_1_\| of the law. He was sincere and pious, but as 
ignorant of the kingdom of heaven as a child. The 
miracles of Jesus attracted him. He knew that no 
man could perform such works alone: God must be 
with him. So he came to hear the great Master 
talk of things divine. Jesus analyzed him on sight, 
and laid bare to the ruler’s astonished eyes the prin- 
ciples of the spiritual kingdom. Christ used the 
plural “ye,” as if he had said: “ The time has come, 
Nicodemus, when the human race must no longer 
depend on outward forms, such as baptism and cir- 
cumcision; ye must be born again.” And then, as 
if to show that he did not make war on outward 
religion, did not destroy the law, he recapitulated 
so as to include both the outward and inward, “ Ex- 
cept a man be born of water and of the Spirit ; ” as 
if he had said, “ I do not mean to say you shall not 
be baptized, Xicodemus, but the kingdom of heaven 
is more than that; ye must be born of the Spirit, 
horn from above, if you would know its power and 
glory.” Nicodemus was astonished. The word 
“birth” dazed him. It was simply impossible. 
“ How can a man be born when he is old ? ” This 
question betrayed his ignorance of spiritual things. 

( 179 ) . 


180 


Behold the Lamb of God ! 


Why could Jesus not get him to understand? If, 
indeed, the new birth as here taught by the Saviour 
had always been enjoyed, and especially by the Is- 
raelites, it seems that Nicodemus should have known 
something of it. Did not his mother and father 
enjoy it? none of his relations or acquaintances? 
This ruler did not object like enemies of the doc- 
trine of regeneration of this age. That class now 
would say: “I know very well what you mean, but 
I do not accept it. It is not rational, or it is not 
taught in the Scriptures.” Nicodemus did not 
speak thus. On the contrary, he had never seen a 
case of it, he had no example in the history of his 
nation. It was a revelation to him, and he stood 
mute before his teacher. 

“Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not 
these things?” Jesus would not reproach thus a 
common man, a peasant; but here was one who, by 
his profession as teacher of the law and prophets, 
is presumed to know what the law and the proph- 
ets teach. “Art thou a master? ” and hast not 
read what would occur in the “last days,” in the 
fullness of the time?” Have you not seen it in 
type, symbol, and prophecy? As a master, you 
should have learned it from your books. Nicode- 
mus was familiar enough with the water-birth, a 
rite used in the Jewish process of proselyting. By 
such means a stranger may become an Israelite, if 
circumcised; and, therefore, religious according to 
the Jews’ method of estimating religion; but Jesus 
would advance both Jew and Gentile to a higher 
plane of religion: “Ye must be born of the Spirit.” 


A. Man of God Learning. 


181 


In this conversation Nicodemus did not fully com- 
prehend Jesus’ instruction, even after the most 
elaborate explanation; and probably Jesus did not 
expect it of him, for the time was not yet fully 
come. lie did, however, so far interest the ruler 
that, in all probability, he was among the first to 
feel the Holy Spirit’s sanctifying power. 

Jesus was himself under the law; he was made 
under it that he might redeem them that were un- 
der the law. lie obeyed it; but he was also laying 
the foundations of the kingdom of heaven, and 
hence we see a strange admixture of heavenly and 
legal principles. Living under the" one, he was 
opening the other by setting out principles and 
making explanations of states of mind and condi- 
tions that would be enjoyed under the other. At 
times he instructs for present use; at other times 
he teaches for the use of the future. To Nicode- 
mus he was opening a view of the coming king- 
dom which was clear and beautiful to himself, but 
to his pupil the scene was hazy and mystical, be- 
cause spiritual things were being viewed through 
the dark glass of human means. The spiritual 
eyes of Nicodemus were not yet opened. This les- 
son was the first touch of the healing hand on his 
diseased moral optics. When a young man came 
kneeling and asked instruction Jesus confined him- 
self to a law view of religion ; it^was sufficient. If 
the young man would do what the law required, 
and died before Jesus, he would be safe; and any 
amount of spiritual instruction would not insure 
his present salvation, for the time had not come. 


182 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


The young man did not ask instruction as a disci- 
ple, but simply as one of the Jewish masses seeking 
personal aid. The instruction Jesus gave him an- 
swered all his demands; but to be “perfect” he 
was informed that he must follow Jesus. Obedi- 
ence to law did not make him perfect, “for the law 
made nothing perfect,” Paul informs us. But the 
case of Nicodemus was different. Jesus found him 
to be a good subject through whom to further his 
own plans; hence the evangelical quality of in- 
struction. 

Jesus also forgave sins before his death; but this 
was undoubtedly a conformity to the priestly cus- 
tom, and was a pardon of like nature with that 
provided under the law. It was justification, but 
unconnected with the privilege of immediate adop- 
tion, as we now find the two principles related in 
the New Testament. The sin was forgiven, but not 
cleansed out of the heart, as in the blood of redemp- 
tion. 

When Jesus said, “Keep the commandments,” 
the young man answered, “All these things have I 
kept from my youth up,” and yet he was not per- 
fect. Jesus rejoined and said: “If thou wilt be 
perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the 
poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and 
come and follow me.” Thus it is made clear that, 
however perfect the obedience to law — the moral 
law — there is an imperfection which can be sup- 
plied .only in the following after Christ. But 
Christ did not mean to say that this perfection was 
to be obtained by the mere act of selling property 


A Man of God Learning. 


183 


and disbursing to the poor. I suppose that injunc- 
tion was made merely in aid of the further and bet- 
ter act of following the Saviour. His wealth tied 
him to business; it occupied his time, and that pre- 
cluded him from studying the nature of Jesus and 
the kingdom of heaven. If then the young man 
would seek the perfection of the kingdom of heav- 
en, he must attend on the personal instructions of 
Jesus, and his possessions stood probably in the 
way of this. As the property must be removed in 
order to follow the Master, so the following was only 
intended as a means of qualifying him for an early 
entrance into the perfection of the kingdom of 
heaven. Had the young man followed Christ, he 
would have enjoyed the grace of the spiritual Pen- 
tecost with the other disciples; as it is, we have no 
knowledge as to his after life. It is possible that 
he fell in with the opposition when the persecu- 
tions came, and was lost. This much we learn 
from his case: he was not 'perfect , notwithstanding 
he had kept the law blamelessly, and his perfection 
depended not alone on selling his property, but on 
following Christ. Of course this following implied 
the graces of the new testament. 


CHAPTER XXIII. 


i 

f 


l - — 

The Best Example of Ancient Piety. 

W HEN one takes a cursory view of the old and 
new testaments, casually glancing back over 
both at one view, an involuntary conviction seizes 
the mind that a wide difference exists between the 
two; but when we undertake to particularize we 
find ourselves in a difficult place. The material or 
physical glory of the old strikes the sensual eye, 
and the beauty of spirituality is dimmed. Suppose 
we find all the leading characteristics of both testa- 
ments, and carefully compare them. In the first 
testament we find faith in God, prophecy, miracles, 
prayer, fasting, devotion to religion, martyrdom, 
morality, holiness, the love of God, and atonement 
in the blood of beasts; in the second testament we 
find the same, except atonement in the blood of 
beasts; here the atonement is in the blood of Christ. 
But in addition to these we find the love of God 
shed abroad in the heart, the new birth — the bap- 
tism of the Holy Ghost — and faith in Jesus Christ. 
The new testament has furnished no better mira- 
cles or prophets or morality or prayers or devotion 
than the old. It has furnished the atonement of 
Christ, and therefore calls for an additional element 
of faith: “Ye believe in God, believe also in me.” 
This better atonement demanded specific faith in 
( 184 ) 


The Best Example of Ancient Piety. 


185 


Christ as a finished atonement, and brought with it 
a redeeming or reconstructing grace — the baptism 
of the Holy Ghost. 

Now let us find the best specimen of religion un- 
der the first covenant or in any of the former dis- 
pensations of mercy, and compare it with the best 
specimens under the new testament. We will not 
take Abel or Enoch, for the record in their cases is 
too meager to estimate. Enoch was indeed trans- 
lated after he had walked with God three hundred 
years; but that could have been done under a pro- 
visional state in which the standard was below that 
of the present dispensation. The question is not 
how well or how long one obeyed God, but how 
much did God reveal of himself and the plan of re- 
demption to him. Enoch did indeed walk with 
God, and so did Peter, James, and John; yet John 
had no more religion than to desire to burn up a 
whole village of Samaritans because they declined 
to entertain his Master, and Peter was a fighting 
apostle to the hour that he drew his sword in de- 
fense of Jesus. After they were baptized into the 
new kingdom — the kingdom of heaven — they did 
not desire such things; but at that time they were . 
living up to the light they had. So was Enoch; 
but that does not say how much light he had. It 
is a question of the best religion, not of the most 
faithful man. Enoch as a man might have been 
extraordinary, and doubtless was. His devotion to 
God, for the times in which he lived, was of a re- 
markably high order, for he was honored by a 
translation, whatever that is. But what is transla- 




186 Behold the Lamb of God! 

tion? It is only an exit from this life without tire 
pangs of death. I would rather have the sanctify- 
ing presence of Jesus and die by the rack than to be 
translated into the spirit form, still sinful in de- 
praved appetites and tempers. Even Enoch looked 
forward in prophecy to the day when “the Lord 
cometh with ten thousand of his saints.” The 
least one in the kingdom of heaven was greater 
than Enoch. 

We shall not take Noah for the best example, for 
he got drunk and did not repent, so far as we know. 
We shall not take Abraham, although he was the 
friend of God, for when he was tested in Egypt he 
denied his wife, and was guilty of falsehood, and 
indulged in a plurality of wives. Moses will not 
do. lie became excited with anger, and God would 
not let him enjoy the land of Canaan by way of 
punishment for his sin. David’s name is unfort- 
unately coupled with Uriah in amours that take 
him out of the catalogue of the best examples;, and 
his denunciatory Psalms, if not prophetic, evince a 
harshness incompatible with the spirit of Christ. 
If prophetic, the Psalms cannot be taken as expo- 
nents of David’s private life. Job is an excellent 
character, but how far Job was a real one and how 
far fiction the learned have not decided. Opinions 
conflict, and are various. It is not safe to build 
theological theories on doubtful things; besides 
this, his views of religion are very material as com- 
pared with the New Testament, and some of his 
words would sound strange in a Christian. 

Elijah is the man. This man’s busy life is of 


The Best Example of Ancient Piety. 


187 


record. AVe see him in his private and public acts, 
in prosperity and in adversity, but we see only the 
straightforward man of God-stern, commanding, 
dignified, and upright; no blot on his life. Hu- 
man nature has never risen higher in a sinful creat- 
ure than in the grand old prophet of Carmel. He 
also was translated. He was the hero of the most 
celebrated contest of faith in the annals of history. 
Israel had been overrun with false gods. The 
king, queen, and princes were corrupted, God’s 
house polluted, his altars desecrated, and Elijah 
thought himself to be the only servant of God left 
in all Israel; but he was not dismayed. God bid 
him summon Israel to the heights of Carmel, where 
he should make a test of the idol gods. Royalty 
in dazzling equipage was present. Prince and ret- 
inue, lord and peasant, generals and armies, the 
rich, the poor, and the stranger crowned the stony 
brow of the mountain. A sea of faces greeted the 
pious combatants as they erected altars and pre- 
pared the sacrifices. The generous prophet gave 
his adversaries the advantage of the morning and 
noon. All day they cried to their earless god that 
he would send fire and consume their sacrifice. 
Late in the day Elijah advanced to his altar. He 
had taken the precaution to forestall any charges 
cf fraud by digging ditches around his altar and 
deluging them and the altar with water. Now he 
lifts- his hand and heart to God; the prayer is 
heard; a stream of fire from a cloudless sky pours 
on his sacrifice; it ignites; a moment more, and 
columns of black smoke float above, and the altar 


188 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


and sacrifice are consumed; a dreadful silence pre- 
vails; the prophets of the grove are dumb, and the 
priests of Baal are w.hite with consternation. They 
perhaps were honest people, deceived into a false 
religion. It is a great occasion for the noble Chris- 
tian prophet to evangelize them. If this event 
could transpire in the present day, the minister 
who officiated would no doubt improve the occa- 
sion by inaugurating a great revival — one that 
would sweep the nation. What an occasion for 
Elijah! Bid he stand near the smoldering embers 
of his altar and call on his deluded friends and ad- 
versaries to kneel with him in prayer ? Did he urge 
them to repent, with promise that God would for- 
give, that Jesus’ blood was all-sufficient, that God 
was more pleased with a contrite spirit than with 
burnt-offerings, that “ God so loved the world, that 
he gave [or would give] his only begotten Son, that 
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but 
have everlasting life? ” On the contrary, the fierce 
and stern old religionist, of the covenant under 
which the Church was a state, drew his sword and 
slew on those sacred heights eight hundred miser- 
able victims of idolatry. By what law did he do 
so? The law of the Cliurch-state of Israel. These 
had violated a law whose penalty was death. The 
miracle had overcome the king, who now with- 
drew protection from the false prophets, and al- 
lowed Elijah to execute the law. But what minis- 
ter could do such things now? The Church is no 
longer the state. Religion has assumed a new and 
better character. 


The Best Example of Ancient Piety. 


189 


Before the exact difference between the old and 
the new testaments can be duly appreciated one 
must comprehend the idea of Christian spirituality. 
There are several grades, or rather forms, of spirit- 
uality. If the distinctions are not studied, the er- 
ror of massing is almost inevitable; and if these 
several forms of spirituality are massed, the Chris- 
tian idea of spirituality will assuredly suffer an ir- 
reparable loss. 

1. Pneumatology is one form. This is the rec- 
ognition of spirit existence independent of the 
corporeal. This view of spirituality is common to 
all systems of faith which admit the soul’s immor- 
tality. This, however, is admitted and believed by 
some, without any reference to rectitude of life. 
Their belief is not connected with a system of right 
living. . No distinction between the spirits is ad- 
mitted, except that of a greater or less degree of 
knowledge. 

2. ^Esthetics, or a capacity to commune with 
nature in her deeper poetic sense. This is the 
spirituality of art. Those delicate shadings and 
lines that give finish to pictures and divinity to 
landscapes are the spiritualities of nature. This 
communion with nature is a popular religion with 
a class of our race. 

8. But there is a form of spirituality existing in 
the Christian Church which, though not sinful or 
spurious, is so material, while at the same time it 
bears some resemblance to the high spirituality of 
true Christianity, that Christians are sometimes de- 
ceived and greatly damaged by it. This is hardly 


190 


Behold the Lamb of God 1 . 


a distinct form of spirituality ; perhaps, more cor- 
rectly defined, it is a material view of spiritual 
things. This view is connected with a perfect 
system of morals and faith in God. It is capable 
of producing the highest type of morals.' It is this: 
a belief in God, in Jesus as the Son of God, in an- 
gels and disembodied spirits, in morality, in heaven 
and hell. This form of spirituality accepts the 
Bible as true. This character of believer would be 
much stronger in faith, if angels could be seen as in 
former days, if Jehovah would visit them as he did 
Abraham, if angels would tarry all night with them 
and eat of their food, if they could wrestle with 
them as Jacob did, if fire would fall on wicked 
cities as on Sodom. What this devoted character 
wants is to see angels with material eyes, to see 
God and heaven. This would be glorious, they 
think*. 

True Christian spirituality is of a different nature 
from all those I have described. While it accepts all 
that is good in all the other forms, it is exceedingly 
difficult to describe it. Paul undertook it in 1 Co- 
rinthians ii. 9-12: “But as it is written, Eye hath 
not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into 
the heart of man, the things which God hath pre- 
pared for, them that love him. But God hath re- 
vealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit 
searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 

. . . Now we have received, not the spirit of 

the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we 
might know the things that are freely given to us 
of God.’* These passages do not refer to revela- 


The Best Example of Ancient Piety. 


191 


tions of heaven to be made after death ; they de- 
scribe a condition of soul in this life — a revela- 
tion to us. 44 Eye,” 44 ear,” and 44 heart,” mentioned 
here, mean th§ material eye, ear, and heart. The 
eye might see angels, the ear might hear them, and 
the heart throb with emotions of fear, hope, or 
pleasure at such a sight or hearing; yet the true 
spirituality of the statements made by the angel 
would be wholly unperceived. The true spiritual- 
ity of the Christian is a realm of being wholly dif- 
ferent from all other states. Let us take Philip, 
Thomas, and Peter for illustration. In John xiv. 
Jesus informed the disciples that he would soon 
leave them, hut that he would prepare a place for 
them: 44 And whither I go ye know, and the way 
ye know.” Thomas declared that they did not 
know whither he would go, and of course could 
not know the way. On their face these statements 
seem to be contradictory, yet they are not. Both 
statements are true. Jesus was occupying the 
higher spiritual plane, while Thomas spoke from 
the lower. Thomas took a material view of spirit- 
ual facts. He knew that Christ was the Messiah, 
and that fact involved the whole spiritual theory. 
But Thomas did not have a spiritual knowledge of 
Christ’s Messiahship, therefore he did not know all 
that was involved even in what he did comprehend. 
Thomas knew Jesus, and it turned out that Jesus 
was himself 44 the way; ” and here is the mystery of 
this spirituality. They knew Jesus and they did 
not know him. On the plane of matter — in a 
merely material sense — they knew him, but in a 


192 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


sense yet to be developed they did not know him. 
“If ye had known me, ye should have known my 
Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, 
and have seen him.” That is, “the time is now at 
hand when your spiritual faculties shall be quick- 
ened, and I who am one with the Father will be 
more perfectly revealed to you by the Spirit of 
God.” Philip, who had been listening to this con- 
versation of Jesus and Thomas with the keenest 
interest, now interposed his own reverent doubts. 
“Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.” 
Honestly skeptical, Philip was just a little mis- 
taken. He thought it would suffice, but it would 
not. That is, if God had made himself manifest to 
Philip in the manner of his suggesting, it would 
have failed; for in the very nature of God’s being 
he could not be made more materially manifest 
than that which nature’s awe-inspiring grandeur 
had already proclaimed to Philip. There is but 
one other way to make God manifest, and that 
way Jesus was now preparing to open for his serv- 
ants. Philip voiced the sentiment of a carnal 
piety — let my eyes see him; let my hands handle 
him. The true Christian spirituality was unknown 
to him. Step by step Jesus led his disciples along 
the ascending grade from the carnal system, where- 
in pneumatology formed the basis of a religious 
code, to that higher state wherein the soul enjoys 
lirect communion with the Spirit of God himself. 
The Holy Ghost had revealed the divine Son ship 
>f Jesus to Peter, but it gave him only a mental 
dea; it was not a spiritual perception. The laws 


The Best Example of Ancient Piety. 


193 


of spirituality were not involved in this knowledge. 
Peter would never have become holier by such 
knowledge, if Jesus had not found another door to 
Peter’s nature. Peter was moral, and intellectual- 
ly was furnished with the sublime truths of a spir- 
itual system; but with that knowledge only he 
never could have risen higher than a conscientious 
Pharisee, a man of conscience and intellectual 
piety; but when he was baptized with the Holy 
Ghost he realized how near and yet how far intel- 
lectual religion is from the spiritual. 

Take the case of Jonah, a prophet with near and 
confidential relations to angels and Jehovah. He 
is commanded to go to Nineveh. He is not in the 
spirit of the work. Nineveh is the enemy of Ju- 
dea, and the nations have much antipathy for each 
other. Jonah shares the national hate and pride, 
lie is apprehended in his flight by material meth- 
ods. u Storms ” and “ whales ” and “ lots ” conspire 
to subdue the recusant prophet. F nil of discontent, 
and driven at the end of God’s material goads as 
the ox is driven, the prophet at last, through fear 
for his material life, appears in his mission-field 
with his “ gospel.’’ Without any reference to 
Christ or heaven or hell he begins his gospel and 
ends it in this brief announcement: “ Yet forty 
days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.” Jonah 
did not even couple his denunciation with the con- 
dition of repentance; and herein the bitterness ot 
his heart developed itself. He had every reason to 
believe God would withhold his afflicting hand if 
the people repented, but he did not want them to 
13 


194 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


repent. In fact, this seems to have been the ver) 
reason of his refusal to accept the mission to Nine- 
veh. If he could have delivered the message, and 
then have been allowed to sit on an adjoining 
mountain and witness the destruction of the whole 
city of millions of all ages, sexes, and conditions of 
life, he would gladly have accepted the call. But 
he feared God would be merciful to the Jews’ ene- 
my, and refused to go. 

God’s act of mercy “displeased Jonah exceeding- 
ly, and he was very angry. And he prayed unto 
the Lord, and said, I pray thee, O Lord, was not 
this my saying, when I was yet in my country? 
Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew 
that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to 
anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of 
the evil.” The poor prophet was so miserable be- 
cause God was merciful that he prayed to die. A 
covenant of religion that produces this type of min- 
istry in the very highest order of its holiness should 
suggest moderation with those who ridicule the 
.theory of this book. Here was a fine type of the 
material style of spirituality. lie spoke with an- 
gels, talked with the Lord, was moved to prophesy 
by the Holy Spirit, and was especially selected by 
Jehovah for a religious mission. He had become 
so familiar with material manifestations of angels 
that he talked to them without reverence, and 
chided them about God’s mercy and long-suffering; 
and so poor was his idea of the Holy God that he 
thought to escape his power by fleeing from his 
country. 


The Best Example of Ancient Piety. 


195 


Fear and materialized spirituality are co-ordinate. 
Universal love and true spirituality are co-ordinate. 
Fear is the law of the first; love is the law of the 
second. It is a well-known law of human nature 
to bring down every thing with which it associates 
to a level with itself, and that “ familiarity breeds 
contempt’’ is generally true. Any religion that 
introduces angels or God to the physical sense of 
man has a tendency to bring the whole thing into 
contempt, for such material presentation has no ef- 
fect on man’s spiritual nature, and the result is that 
angels and God are alike carnalized. 

The law which is best adapted to bring man up 
and keep him in humble, loving relation to holy 
things is the law that decarnalizes nature — the law 
of spirituality as it has developed through Jesus by 
faith, the union of man and God in the Holy Ghost. 
The spirituality of the gospel is a reverent condi- 
tion of man’s spirit, the very nature of which is a 
loving obedience to God, and a sense of universal 
brotherhood with man and sonship to God. It is 
the Spirit of God developing itself in man, and 
therefore a state of holiness. The difference be- 
tween carnal spirituality and real spirituality is 
beautifully illustrated in the first and second cove- 
nants — the old and the new testaments. Perhaps 
the strongest case under the first covenant is in 
Isaiah vi. 1-5. The seraphim took a live coal from 
the altar and touched the prophet’s lips, and in- 
formed him that his iniquity was forgiven and his 
sins purged away. But this was not a reality; it 
was only a vision. The prophecy was of Christ to 


196 


Behold the Lamb of God 7 


come, and the whole vision was a reflection of com- 
ing events. As the Lord and his train filled the 
temple, so would the glory of Christ fill the whole 
world, and the Holy Ghost in this future glory was 
represented by the live coal. Jesus refers to this 
very prophecy, and applies it to his day. 


CHAPTER XXIV. 


Faith. 

“And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but 
the greatest of these is charity.” (Paul.) 


HETHER or not the Holy Spirit intended 



vv the order of these graces as laid down in 
this text to teach the lesson I now deduce, it does 
at least present the grades of truth in the three dis- 
pensations mentioned in the Scriptures with singu- 
lar accuracy. The period of promise from Adam 
to Abraham was more of faith than hope and love; 
the period from Abraham to Christ was of hope 
largely developed, so much so that all eyes were 
cast forward to some great event on which the peo- 
ple of Israel built the greatest hope; from Jesus on 
it is a reign of love. These all abide, for we still 
have faith and hope; but high over these we recog- 
nize the supremacy of love. Faith and hope, like 
law, find their highest realization in love. But it 
is of faith I would now speak. Why should I de- 
fine? The public is too well instructed in this car- 
dinal element of Christianity to need definitions. It 
is rather the philosophy than the theology of faith 
that now claims attention. Why is faith a princi- 
ple of theology? why did God select faith as the 
condition of salvation? If Jesus were given as an 
atonement for sin, why should not that be sufficient 


( 197 ) 


198 


Behold the Lamb of God / 


to absolve man and restore the race without incor- 
porating faith into the scheme? Faith in God is 
no great offense to the intelligence, but faith in Je- 
sus Christ is the stone of stumbling. By the class 
of intelligence here referred to th3 atonement is 
considered a figment of mythology, and faith is 
nonsense. “Atonement,” they say, “ with its corre- 
lated dogma, reduces God to savagery and mystifies 
religion.” Perhaps not. Scenes vary as the points 
of observation change. Looked at from another 
stand-point, atonement is rational, and God is seen 
in his best wisdom, and faith’s relation to both -seems 
wise and useful. Mock faith as .one may, it holds a 
large place in the affairs of man. None live with- 
out it. It is a faculty of mind. It is natural. It 
underlies society, and is the attraction of cohesion 
that holds the fabric of human society together. It 
is the first faculty of the mind that develops. A 
young infant trusts its mother and nurse, but dis- 
trusts all else. As it grows and forms acquaint- 
ances trust extends, and so continues till confidence 
is violated. Trust is the basis of conjugal relations, 
of the State, of commerce, of all organizations. 
Without it business fails, social relations fail, gov- 
ernments fail. Faith is the basis of currency, the 
value of gold and silver. Lose faith in your cur- 
rency, and the money becomes valueless. When 
God planted this singular principle in the human 
mind he displayed the wisdom that marks the Dei- 
ty. But did he intend to limit its function to so- 
cial life alone? Love cannot be controlled except 
through this faculty of the mind. Confidence goes 


Faith. 


199 


before and prepares the way for love. Man does 
not naturally love God, and with most persons this 
proposition needs no proof. We have only to turn 
eyes in on the heart and see for ourselves. It is 
very true that we may have good impulses, may 
feel our need of a better estate; but, despite all the 
better promptings of the mind, the painful truth 
remains that we love sin and obey it unless we are 
sanctified by the Spirit, notwithstanding the convic- 
tion of a better judgment to the contrary. 

Paul, representing human nature at this point, 
makes a sad picture of our natural condition : “For 
we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, 
sold under sin. For that which I do, I allow not: 
for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, 
that do I. . . . For the good that I would, do 

I not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.” 
Whatever may be thought of Paul’s inspiration, it 
cannot be doubted that he has drawn a faithful pict- 
ure of human nature, one that finds its original in 
every unsanctified mind. This is proof that the hu- 
man intellect is not of itself equal to the contest in 
a war with the natural passions; and, however ex- 
alted one’s view of God intellectually, that love, if 
love it be, is too cold and weak to induce such obe- 
dience as the enlightened judgment approves. This 
is spiritual death, described by Paul as “a body of 
death.” Man must be delivered from it before he 
can truly love God. But by what means is this de- 
livery effected? It is just here that theology loses 
itself in the hazy fields of metaphysics. There is 
more of metaphysics in Paul’s writings than in all 


200 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


the Bible besides, and that for the reason that be 
writes more on the relations of faith to the atone- 
ment. It is useless to deny that religion as it re- 
lates to faith is extremely metaphysical. Man is 
in part metaphysical himself, and it is in that de- 
partment, if any, that we may look for whatever 
connection there is between man and God. The 
assumption of this book is that God will enter the 
human heart and sensibly reveal himself to man, 
and that he comes through the medium of faith in 
Christ Jesus. It would be assuming more than I 
can prove to say that faith is a substance, notwith- 
standing it is also a faculty of mind; and yet things 
just as unlikely have been asserted and accepted. 
Of course, if it be substance, it is of the invisible 
kind, even more sublimated than atmospheric air; 
but, whether it is substance or not, it is a function 
of the mind, and acts as a conductor for the Spirit 
of God. God out of Christ is an impossible concep- 
tion. Omnipotence! omniscience! infinity! Who 
can grasp the thought? Faith cannot take hold of 
it; love cannot find it. Man, with all his faith and 
love, is bewildered with the thought of God’s im- 
mensity. To bring himself within the power of 
faith, the incarnation and suffering of Jesus became 
a necessity. Sin caused it, and love acts upon the 
cause. God is in the suffering Christ. Touch Christ 
by this strange power of faith, and you touch God. 
“ I perceive,” said Christ, “ that virtue has gone out 
of me.” He felt the current flow when the hand of 
faith touched but the hem of his garment. It is not 
magnetism, but when magnetism is admitted a con- 


Faith . 


201 


sciousness of God by the law of faith should not be 
denied. By the admission we are in the held of 
occult law, and faith is not more remarkable than 
magnetism. We have entered the domain of mys- 
tery, and stand convinced of its truth. We see 
darkly. The road we followed to this point goes 
farther, but thg light has gone out, and we halt. 
Here we stand and look Godward, amazed and 
anxious. God has come to us through faith, but 
we cannot go to him in his impenetrable mystery. 
Faith is one of nature’s silent forces. If not used 
according to its law, it is impotent and useless; but 
when used as God designed it should be it is dyna- 
mite in the moral realm. It is not strange at all, 
but very natural, that God should have made atone- 
ment thus related to faith. 

I have given the theory. IIow do the facts of 
experience agree with it? Jesus said: “ No man 
knoweth . . . the Father, save the Son, and 

he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.” This 
revelation is conditional on faith. Does experience 
justify the statement? For more than eighteen 
hundred years men and women have corroborated 
its truth. They ha w e tested its truth. They have 
believed and realized it. These things have not oc- 
curred in dark corners, but in the very centers of 
civilization. The greatest learning has bowed rev- 
erently at the altars of this truth, and the loftiest 
characters of history are its ardent devotees, and 
to-day millions of intelligent men and women say 
they know hy experience that faith in Jesus gives 
them assurance of inward purity and sins forgiven. 


202 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


They know and think but little of the reasons un- 
derlying the facts, but the fact itself is commended 
to the sense of feeling. They know it. The full 
power of faith has not been tested. Long before 
the fountain for sin and uncleanness prophesied of 
by Zechariah had been opened Elijah raised the 
dead and opened the fountains of the clouds. 

Jesus assured his followers that mountains would 
move at faith’s command. Those electrical powers 
that slumber unseen in the chambers of nature have 
only to be properly attracted, and nothing can re- 
sist them. If faith is a proper medium, then it is 
by this means that the very power of God is turned 
against the mountain. Of course it will move if 
God move against it. So, also, will the pollutions 
of the heart be cleansed when the Spirit of God is 
revealed in the soul. Faith is a sun in this divine 
system; repentance is a satellite. As faith devel- 
ops the heart is touched and the eye weeps and sins 
are forgiven. When faith is perfect God by the 
Spirit enters the soul, and all the inward defile- 
ments are purged away, and the love of God is 
shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Ghost. This 
is the finishing work, and is the last of the holy 
train as the second covenant is the last in the order 
of earthly developments of heavenly truth. “ These 
three, but the greatest of these is love.” 


CHAPTER XXV. 


Ezekiel’s Vision. 

I X the thirty-sixth chapter of Ezekiel the prophet 
speaks of a time coming in the history of Judah 
and Israel when the Lord will “ sprinkle clean water 
upon you, and ye shall be clean : from all your filthi- 
ness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 
A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit 
will I put within you: and I will take away the 
stony heart out of your flesh and I will give you 
a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit with- 
in you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and 
ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.” This 
language occurs in the chapter immediately pre- 
ceding that in which we have an account of the 
singular valley of dry bones; and the vision of the 
valley of dry bones is immediately followed by that 
of the two sticks, in which the final union of Judah 
and Israel are predicted under the reign of David 
in “the everlasting covenant.” One can hardly 
fail to see the identity of these prophetic events 
with the new testament. Three points make these 
events inapplicable to any period of the old testa- 
ment: 

1. The phrase “ sprinkle with clean water” is 
figurative, and is made to represent the cleansing 
grace of the new testament by Paul in the Epistle 

( 203 ) 


204 


Behold the Lamb of God ! 


to the Hebrews, chapter x. 22. The Jewish econ- 
omy always required clean w T ater. Impure water 
could never be used by the nation in religious cere- 
monies. The clean water mentioned in prophecy 
is not literal water, but that cleansing process of 
the Holy Ghost which the clean water of the Jew- 
ish types foreshadowed. It is a metonymy. Paul 
so uses the figure. 

2. In the vision of the valley of dry bones two 
things occur to take the events prophesied of out 
of the first testament. The people who are repre- 
sented by the dry bones are to come out of graves. 
“ Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, 
and cause you to come up out of your graves, and 
bring you into the land of Israel. And ye shall 
know that I am the Lord, when I have opened 
your graves, O my people, and brought you up out 
of your graves, and shall put my Spirit in you.” Dr. 
Benson makes the Jewish captivity the“ grave ’’and 
“death,” and the promised deliverance is opening 
the grave. The enslavement of the Jewish nation 
to foreign monarchs may have been the occasion 
for this vision and prophecy, but a literal fulfill- 
ment is found in the effect of Jesus’ death and res- 
urrection on that people, on those who were true 
Israelites, and the word grave need not be strained 
into a mere captivity; it was literal. The dead did 
arise, and showed themselves to many when Jesus 
was crucified, and all the spirits of the holy dead 
came out of death into life eternal. Whatever may 
have been the life of a disembodied spirit before 
Christ came, it is certain that life was not iramor- 


Ezekiel r s Vision. 


205 


tal. Immortal life had been precluded in Adam 
after his fall. It was to be had only in the reme- 
dial agency of the gospel through a dead and risen 
Christ. At the death of Jesus the dead heard his 
voice, and they that were in their graves came 
forth. Jesus said: “The hour is comifrg, and now 
is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of 
God: and they that hear shall live.” Whatever 
the immediate design of the Spirit was in the vision 
of dry bones, it is certain that the ultimate intent 
was to exhibit the work of Christ through the 
Holy Spirit at his death and resurrection; and it 
was literally fulfilled in the Spirit work that fol- 
lowed Jesus’ death. 

3. Following close on this strange event is the 
vision of the “two sticks.” Our learned standards 
agree that this refers to the reign of Christ. It is 
during the reign of this David that the covenant of 
peace — -“ the everlasting covenant” — is established. 

Here, then, are three wonderful events brought 
forward in Ezekiel’s prophecy — viz.: First, the re- 
newal of the heart; second, the opening of graves, 
and blessings on the spirits of deceased Israelites; 
third, the everlasting covenant of peace. It is im- 
possible to separate these events and assign them to 
different covenants. They constitute a group of 
evangelical events, and are in line with those 
groups of truths found in Isaiah, Daniel, Jeremiah, 
and all the prophets, relating to the same subject. 
The Psalms are eminent in this wonderful habit of 
grouping future events, and at the same time coup- 
hug them with local matters. Who doubts Isaiah’s 


206 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


meaning when, at the seventh chapter and four- 
teenth verse, while conversing with the king of 
Israel, he says: “Therefore the Lord himself shall 
give you a sign ; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, 
and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” 
Here is a rapid transition from the local affairs of 
Ahaz to the far-off kingdom of the Messiah, all 
grouped with local events. 

If the theory had been received by the Church 
that the holy dead of the first covenant w T ere not 
finally made spiritual till after the sacrifice of Christ 
had been really executed, the standards would never 
have made a Jewish captivity and deliverance a full 
and complete answer to Ezekiel’s vision of the val- 
ley of dry bones. The future reign of Christ was 
admitted by the Church; therefore, the vision of the 
sticks of Judah and Israel, united under King Da- 
vid, was readily accepted by the standards as refer- 
ring to the Messianic reign of the second covenant. 
But does not the fact of this reign of David, being 
in the future, force the conclusion that Jesus did 
not reign at the time of the prophetic utterance? 
And if he did not then reign, what was the status 
of the times present? The reign of Jesus is of 
course conceded to be spiritual; but if that be 
true, then there was no spiritual kingdom at the 
time of Ezekiel’s prophecy. If not, then we see a 
place in the history of the Church well fitted to be 
called the valley of dry bones. Their resuscitation 
to living forms depended on the action of the Spir- 
it; it was to breathe on them. But before this 
should take place Judah and Israel should have a 


Ezekiel's Visum. 


207 


‘•Prince of Peace.” lie should be called David; 
but the son of Jesse had been dead long before 
Ezekiel wrote, therefore Jesus was to be the Da- 
vid of the new covenant, the everlasting covenant. 

The scene of this prophecy is identical with that 
quoted by Peter from Joel, saying: “In the last 
days, saith God, I will pour out my Spirit upon all 
flesh ; ” also of that quoted by Paul, in Hebrews 
x. 1G, from Jeremiah: “I will put my laws into 
their hearts, and in their minds will I write them.” 
Daniel watched with profound interest while the 
stone was being cut from the mountain-side until it 
filled the whole earth. It was the future of those 
great events that made the first covenant a neces- 
sity. 

It is needless that I should prove that the 
prophets and the law itself contemplated wonder- 
ful events for the future. To this all agree. All I 
need to prove is that this future wonder is a spirit- 
ual state. That is easily done. Indeed, the stand- 
ards are agreed on that as well. Therefore the 
real work I have in hand is to show what is really 
a logical deduction from granted premises — that is, 
that if the second covenant be spiritual, the first 
wa 3 not. This too would be readily granted by the 
standards, if it did not seem to involve (1) either the 
salvation of the ancient holy dead in doubt, or (2) 
save them without spirituality, or (3) deny salvation 
to them, or (4) compel the adoption of the theory 
that they were only called and elected to enjoy sal- 
vation when the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus 
should be accomplished — the theory of this book. 


208 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


But I answer that if the Scriptures shut us up to 
the conclusion that salvation was imperfect till the 
sacrifice of Jesus was perfected, I am not responsi- 
ble for the consequent conclusion. And when driv- 
en to the necessity of making deductions, the theory 
that ancient salvation was conditioned on the fut- 
ure crucifixion of Christ finds more support in the 
Bible than the theory that Jesus Christ’s blood was 
a complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sin before 
there was any Jesus or blood or flesh to die. The 
word in the unincarnated form was not Jesus. lie 
was not Messiah ; he was not capable of blood or 
death. The death of Jesus is the cause of salva- 
tion. The promise of his death is not the cause. 
It is the death , not the promise , that is the very 
ground-work of redemption proceeding from God’s 
love. If I am driven to make deductions, I shall 
always prefer to believe that the ancient dead were 
provided for in some unknown way, by election, 
till the second — the covenant of grace — came, rath- 
er than surrender the central Christian truth that 
Jesus’ death and resurrection are the cause of hu- 
man salvation. 

It has been suggested that God’s promise is like 
a circulating bank-note. So long as the bank is 
good the note is good; and since God cannot fail, 
of course his promise cannot fail. But this simile 
needs two points to make it fit: First, God has 
never made salvation circulate in that way. lie 
has never promised it, except in the crucified and 
risen Son. The death and resurrection of Jesus are 
salvation. This is the thing that is promised. 


Ezekiel's Vision. 


209 


Second, he could not give it, and then promise it. 
It was first promised that it might he given after- 
ward. The commercial theory bears no analogy to 
the facts of the case. It assumes the very thing the 
Scriptures deny — viz., that salvation may he en- 
joyed without the death and resurrection of the Son 
of God. This theory puts salvation in the promise, 
whereas the promise itself defers salvation to the 
time when it shall be accomplished in the actual 
death and resurrection of the Saviour. Hence we 
have the first covenant with its promises, types, 
symbols, and prophets, forecasting the great events 
of the covenant of fulfillment and grace. 

Israel was no better by nature than any other 
nation, notwithstanding all his cleansing processes 
and laws. The holiest of this people were in the 
same unsaved condition as the other nations. But 
Israel differed from the others in the fact that it 
sustained a covenant relation to God. This affect- 
ed the nation in two ways: First, it guaranteed 
salvation in the future to all who obeyed the laws 
of the nation. This is the reason why the nation 
was made a Church. It combined such laws as 
were needful to a well governed civil nation, and 
also such laws as were needful to the development 
of the best possible morals. They were all consid- 
ered as religious laws, because it was to be a relig- 
ious nation. It also must have ceremonial laws, or 
laws of a ritualistic nature, because it is a symbolic 
Church. It is a nation chosen by God for special ec- 
clesiastical reasons, and therefore is God’s Church- 
state. He is to be recognized as the head or gov- 
14 


210 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


erning power. This being true, whoever obeyed 
the laws of this Church were guaranteed in their 
right to whatever blessing the children of God 
should enjoy in the future covenant. To this end 
they were elected at death, or rather they were 
elected by being born into Israel. This election was 
confirmed by circumcision, and afterward main- 
tained by obedience till death, when of course the 
election became final. Here in death — in the grave 
— the spirit probably rested in a quiet repose like 
that of physical slumber till the death of Jesus, 
when his Spirit came on them as in the valley of 
dry bones. 

It is possible that in this view we have a reason 
for the answer Samuel’s spirit made to Saul: “Why 
hast thou disturbed me? ” Moses and Elias on the 
Mount of Transfiguration were specially awaked and 
called to that holy conference for reasons of state; 
they were needed as witnesses. But, however this 
may be, the holy dead of Israel were under the 
electiou of the first covenant, reserved without fur- 
ther repentance or faith or work, awaiting the 
grace of adoption and conformation by the Spirit 
to the image of the Lord Jesus Christ. 

Second, it guaranteed to living Israel the first 
offers of grace under the new testament. Jesus 
came unto his own, but they received him not. lie 
sent his disciples to preach only to the lost sheep 
of the house of Israel at first. # If the Jews had 
received him in their national capacity, I do not 
doubt but that the secular part of those great 
prophecies relating to the coming of Christ and 


Ezekiel's Vision. 


211 


the splendor of the Jewish nationality would have 
been literally fulfilled. 

Thus Ezekiel, in closing his vision of the dry 
bones, said: “And shall put my Spirit in you, and 
ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own 
land: then shall ye know that I the Lord have 
spoken it, and performed it, saith the Lord.” So, 
also, he closes the vision relating to the sticks and 
unity of Israel under the everlasting covenant, say- 
ing: “And I will make them one nation in the 
land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king 
shall be king to them all : . . . neither shall they 
defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with 
their detestable things, nor with any of their trans- 
gressions: but I will save them out of all their 
dwelling places, wherein they have sinned, and will 
cleanse them : so shall they be my people, and I 
will be their God. And David my servant shall be 
king over them.” 

No doubt but that it was the divine purpose to 
make the nation of Israel permanent, as well as to 
bless the world with the spiritual glory of the new 
covenant, but this purpose was conditioned on the 
acceptance of Christ by them as a nation. This 
failure, however, would not affect the spiritual 
bless mgs that were to come on all men by accept- 
ing Jesus in their individual capacity. That contin- 
gencies underlie the prophecies I do not doubt. 
This subject is further treated in the chapter on 
“ Objections.” 

Now while the first covenant affected Israel in 
the manner herein suggested, it does not follow that 


212 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


other nations were lost because the pious ones were 
not elected as were the holy ones of Israel. 

In a chapter on “ Imprisoned Spirits,” I have at- 
tempted to show the relation the dead of all other 
nations who died before the crucifixion sustain to 
the Lord Jesus Christ. It is there assumed that 
those who did not have the law were not judged, 
and that God's judgment in those days was purely 
civil. The soul was not judged or punished after 
death for sins. Christ had not come. These must 
have Christ's atonement before they are finally 
judged. God did not attempt to save souls out of 
Christ, and that work was left for Christ. Soul- 
saving is done alone through and by Jesus Christ. 
Therefore, after his death he went and preached to 
the imprisoned spirits, and, as Peter further said, 
“ the gospel was preached unto the dead.” This 
state .of things applied, I suppose, to all heathen 
who died outside of the Jewish Church before the 
death of Jesus. 

The novelty of Christ's preaching to the dead is 
revolting to minds not accustomed to this mode of 
thinking. It is supposed that after death every 
spirit that hears Christ would in that event, of 
course, repent; this is doubtful. This objection 
proceeds on the ground that disembodied spirits 
know a great deal, if not every thing. This too is 
gratuitous. Spirits are just like living men in 
point of mind, I infer. They only know they are 
spirit, and not visible matter; otherwise there is 
little reason to suppose their stock of information 
is superior to living man. If not actually in hell, 


Ezekiel 's Vision. 


213 


they would probably believe no more of bell and 
God than they do now, because they see and know 
no more of them than they do in this life. Heaven 
must be spiritually realized before it can be identi- 
fied as heaven; so, also, bell will be spiritually re- 
alized before it will be recognized as bell. ' God 
must be realized in the same way to be recognized. 
How the condition of those who died before Christ 
was such as to render them incapable of bell’s tort- 
ure or heavenly felicity till the Spirit of God bad 
acted on them, fitting their spiritual nature for 
those two conditions. This function of the Spirit 
is post-Messianie. Christ’s gospel precedes both the 
life of heaven and the pangs of hell. “ It is a savor 
of life unto life, or of death unto death.” “ The gos- 
pel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation to 
every one that believeth.” But, on the other hand, 
this power becomes intensely destructive when re- 
jected. Why this should be so is not clearly re- 
vealed, for the Scriptures in this case, as in all oth- 
ers, content themselves with a statement of facts, 
leaving theologians and philosophers to make such 
statement of reasons as may seem sufficient to 
them. The common mind is apt to take human 
actions as a guide in forming a theory at this point. 
Thus, God tenders salvation; it is rejected; he is 
insulted, and visits arbitrary destruction on the 
subject. This is the human view of it; but this is 
undoubtedly erroneous. God moves only by laws. 
There is a reason in nature for every thing he does. 

The cause in the case I am now discussing must 
lie in the nature of the law of the divine Spirit. 


214 


Behold the Lamb <f God ! 


Its quickening effect must produce positive and 
negative results. If accepted, it makes one alive in 
a sense that is recognized as spiritual. In its nat- 
ure it is heavenly, healthful, and comforting to the 
spirit of man. If rejected, the reverse effect is re- 
alized. A spiritual status is acquired, but of a con- 
verse nature. The spirit in the first case becomes 
godly or Godized, if that word may be permitted, 
while in the latter case the spirit becomes devilish 
or Satanized. These states are essential to the ap- 
preciation either of heaven or hell. Before Christ 
the Spirit of God tendered no such condition of 
spirit to any one. Christ must first die, then the 
Spirit of God manifests itself in this peculiar func- 
tion. So Jesus preached or declared his mission 
by the Spirit to the dead that they might be judged 
as men in the flesh, or that results might follow in 
their case as in the case of the living. Why this 
should not apply to heathens of this day who die 
without a knowledge of Christ is not so clear, 
though I presume it is because the Spirit of God 
now acts universally. He certainly does act even 
in heathen nations; but the full effect of the gospel 
is felt only where Christ is preached. See Romans 
ii. 12-14/ 

This Spirit of God is now felt universally with or 
without the gospel. If without the gospel, the ef- 
fect is feeble, but sufficient, I presume, to fit the 
soul for its future destiny. Jesus informs us that 
one who knows not the Master's will and doeth it 
not shall be beaten with few stripes. Here we see 
the law of punishment grades the misery by the 


Ezekiel's Vision. 


215 


knowledge of the offender. The Holy Ghost is 
there affecting even the heathen’s soul, and qualify- 
ing it for the future states either one way or the 
other, but the ratio of the effect is regulated by the 
knowledge of right and wrong enjoyed by the sub- 
ject. For even the heathen can do right or wrong 
according to the standard of his religion. 

"Why should the gospel be preached to the hea- 
then? For the same reason that the gospel should 
be preached in America — that is, in order to save 
souls. Of course when a heathen does what he 
thinks to be right — things which his conscience and 
instruction both approve — then before God he can- 
not be condemned; but not very many heathens do 
this. Very few men live up to all the light they 
have, and therefore very few heathen will be saved, 
unless they get hold of the gospel; for in the gospel 
there is the power of God and the renewing power 
of the Holy Ghost, which enable a man to live 
right; and without this power of God very few hea- 
then will live up to all their light. Therefore we 
should send them the gospel in order that the pow- 
er of God may come into their lives*, and the Holy 
Ghost into their hearts, in order that as many as 
possible may be saved. 


CHAPTER XXVI. 


John the Baptist. 

S CIENCE recognizes two kingdoms — the organ- 
ic and the inorganic. These had existed from 
the day the creation of nature was finished. The 
inorganic has no life; the organic, whether of veg- 
etable or animal, had life. But the life of the 
kingdom of man had been seriously affected by the 
loss of its vital connection with a higher source of 
life — spiritual life — which left it more a form of 
death than life. It was devoid of spiritual com- 
munion with God. Not that it was wanting in spir- 
it, but that the spirit itself was unspiritual, unholy. 
Therefore man was found to be imperfect. The 
world furnished environment for the physical and 
mental portion of man, but the spirit found itself 
without environment. On what could the spirit of 
man subsist? Of meats it would surfeit; of riot it 
grew weary. It longed for something its surround- 
ings did not furnish. Another kingdom was need- 
ed. It was only to be restored, for it was once pos- 
sessed and lost by man. Jesus possessed this power 
of restoration. It was the kingdom of a spiritual 
life — a heavenly life — the kingdom of heaven. 
Man’s spirit was to be born into it by a process of 
regeneration, and this principle of the new life would 
be from above. Here it followed the analogy of ev- 
( 21 6 ) 


John the Baptist. 


217 


olution in nature — the lower rising into the higher, 
the inorganic rising into the organic, by the aid oi 
a life-power in the kingdom above it. The old 
testament was but the beauty of crystallization, a& 
compared with the throbbing pulse of the new tes< 
tament. Nature was marshaling her forces prepar- 
atory to a higher grade of life under the organizing 
touches of God’s Spirit. The preparations were 
now finished, the “ fullness of the times ” had come/ 
and the beautiful tracery of prophetic and symbolic 
truth was now ready to take the form of actual re- 
demption and salvation in the spirit life of the 
new testament; for, said Christ, “I am the . . . 

life.” John said: “In him was life; and the life 
was the light of men.” This, then, is the king- 
dom that was to come. John the Baptist declared 
that it was “ at hand.” Jesus himself could as yet 
only say it “is at hand,” and he bid his disciples 
pray that it might come; for he knew that imped- 
iments lay in its way and that contingencies ex- 
isted, and therefore danger of its failure was rec- 
ognized. And although in himself the evolution 
was to be performed, he, even he the God-man, was 
awfully impressed with the possibilities of failure, 
and needed the prayers of sympathizing friends. 

The first mention made of the kingdom of heaven 
is by John the Baptist, who cried : “ Repent, for the 
kingdom of heaven is at hand.” And Jesus said: 
“ The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at 
hand: repent ye.” What is the kingdom of heav- 
en? This term is used in so many different senses 
in the Scriptures that it is well to study it and set- 


218 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


tic the definition at this place. It cannot mean the 
general government of God, for that was always at 
hand, and repentance could have no effect whatever 
on it. It cannot mean the invisible place of rest to 
which the good will go after judgment, for eighteen 
hundred and eighty-eight years have demonstrated 
that it was not then at hand. Jesus declared : “ The 
kingdom of God is come unto } T ou.” Paul said it 
is “ nigh yon, even in your hearts; ” and he defines 
it definitely: it consists in “righteousness, peace, 
and joy in the Holy Ghost.” This is the kingdom 
that John declared to be at hand. It had been spok- 
en of by prophets as future to them. It had not yet 
fully come; it was only at hand — very near to you. 
Jesus was then a grown man, and in a few days was 
to be presented to the public by John’s baptism. 
John did not realize the kingdom within himself, 
but the Holy Ghost, acting with him as with all his 
predecessors in the prophetic office, had revealed 
to him that he should be the herald of “the Lamb 
of God that taketh away the sin of the world.” As 
sin had never been taken away before, John, con- 
templating a state of the human heart with all sin 
taken away — made holy in fact as well as in form — 
styles it the kingdom of heaven, a heart of heavenly 
dispositions, made so by the reign of Jesus. Jesus 
is to reign, and the reign will be heavenly, “lie- 
pent ” — forsake your sins, get ready, the King of 
this heavenly kingdom cometh. Jesus said, after 
John’s death: “From the days of John the Baptist 
until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, 
and the violent take it by force.” Jesus was him- 


John the Baptist . 


219 


self the kingdom of heaven. To that date he was 
Ivi ng without a real spiritual subject on earth. He 
represented the kingdom. It began to suffer vio- 
lence in his own person, as John had also suffered 
in its advocacy, and linally the violent took him by 
force. Then it was duly opened or set up on earth, 
and the multitudes rushed into it. 

John was the evangelical prophet; he was filled 
with the Holy Ghost from his mothers womb. But 
this must have been in the Old Testament sense.. It 
must have been a special gift not to renew and 
change his nature, but to produce powerful convic- 
tion of the truth of his message and to inspire him 
with boldness and to forecast the events of his proph- 
ecy. This explanation must be true, because Jesus 
said expressly that “of those who were born of 
woman there hath not risen a greater than John, 
but he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is 
greater than he.” The least in the kingdom of 
heaven can be no less than a regenerated Christian. 
John was not regenerated in the Kew Testament 
sense in life, but enjoyed the class of religion that 
all the prophets enjoyed. He was more evangelical 
than his predecessors, because he lived nearer to 
the day of Christ, and was specially designated by 
Providence as the herald of the kingdom of heaven, 
lie was greater than Abel, Enoch, Abraham, and 
all the line of ancient worthies. He comprehended 
the kingdom of heaven better, but because he could 
not enter into its joys he was less than the least 
in the kingdom. 

John says: “I. indeed have baptized you with wa- 


220 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


ter, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.” 
Water baptism was the chief feature of John’s ad- 
ministration, but the baptism of the Holy Ghost was 
to be the leading feature of Christ’s administration. 
John’s administration, though more evangelical be- 
cause nearer to the day of Christ than any of his pred- 
ecessors, was in the spirit and style of the old testa- 
ment; it was earthly, not spiritual. All he could do 
was to exhort to repentance and baptize with water. 
He did not offer the Holy Ghost to any of his candi- 
dates; he told them that would be done afterward by 
Jesus. Like Abraham, Moses, and the prophets, all 
he could do was earthly and outward; but, like them, 
he was exceedingly earnest in what he performed. 

Perhaps he looked for Jesus to begin the work of 
Spirit baptism immediately, for even John did not 
fully comprehend the mysterious Jesus. That he 
would take away the sin of the world he did believe, 
but perhaps he supposed it would be done by the 
holy baptism without the mediation of death and 
atonement; for the Spirit had revealed it to him 
that Jesus would baptize with the Iloly Ghost. But 
when later in life he found that Jesus was not bap- 
tizing with the Holy Ghost, but was by his disciples, 
according to popular rumor, baptizing with water 
as he himself was doing, doubts arose in his mind as 
to Jesus’ Messiahship. John could never doubt 
that Jesus was a good man, but was doubtful of his 
Messiahship. Therefore he sent the inquiry, “Art 
thou he that should come, or do we look for an- 
other?” John was certain that the Messiah would 
baptize with the Holy Ghost, and had refused water 


John the Baptist. 


221 


baptism to him because he felt tbc need of Jesus’ 
baptism. “ I have need to be baptized of thee, and 
comest thou to me? ” The rumor that John heard, 
which no doubt was false, that Jesus was baptizing 
with water, produced the doubt in John's mind. lie 
expected him to do better than that. John seems 
to have had little or no conception of the atonement. 
True, he had declared Jesus to be the Lamb of God 
that taketh away the sin of the world, but that was 
prophetic, and John himself did not understand or 
believe that his Messiah would die as Jesus was to 
die He did not so construe his own prophecies. 
The prophets looked for a magnificent secular reign 
— the restoration of Israel to the Da vidic glory — and 
expected their conquering Messiah to subjugate all 
nations and extend the Jewish religion over the 
world, by means of arms and wisdom and kindness 
combined, and that he would in some way take sin 
away and baptize with the Holy Ghost. But I 
doubt if they meant any more by this than that the 
people would become generally moral, believers in 
the true God and observers of law and good citizen- 
ship. Wherefore, when John saw that Jesus was not 
baptizing with the Holy Ghost — although, as was 
supposed, he had plenty of time since his intro- 
duction to Israel to have made some progress in the 
work of Spirit baptism — John evidently doubted 
his Messiahship, and, to satisfy himself, sent to know 
if he should look for another. If John had only 
lived to witness the displays of a Pentecost that oc- 
curred a few years later, he would not have asked 
that question. 


222 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


John was filled with the Holy Ghost, and Mary 
the mother of Jesus, and Simeon and Anna and oth- 
ers, showed the deepest piety, and even emotional 
religion. But this was of that kind of Spirit influ- 
ence that existed under the first covenant, and not 
the baptism of the Iloly Ghost that renewed and 
sanctified, as after the resurrection of the Saviour. 
John is the central figure of a dispensation. It is 
a minor dispensation, a transitional period. It is of 
the first covenant, but it is the last of the minor 
dispensations incident to that covenant; it is at a 
point in history where one dispensation shades it- 
self into another, passing over the line under the 
shadow of current events unperceived by the mass- 
es. Only inspired men and women realized the 
wonderful character of the age they lived in, and 
even they could not measure up to the full height 
of the glory of the occasion. Simeon had a glimpse 
of it; Anna saw the limning; John was borne up to 
marvelous conception by the impetuous power of 
the Holy Spirit, and saw the past ages gathering 
around him and ripening to their last unfolding. 
But even his insight fell below a clear view of the 
mighty convulsions that were upheaving the moral 
world. The old prophets had seen it dimly outlined 
on the canvas of coming ages. Zechariah saw this 
strange figure painted on the distant years, and said: 
“It shall come to pass in that day, that the light 
shall not he clear, nor dark : hut it shall be one day 
which shall be known to the Lord, not day, nor • 
night : hut it shall come to pass, that at evening time 
it shall be light.” (Zech. xiv. 6, 7.) So it was; it 


John the Baptist. 


223 


was neither day nor night with John, Simeon, or 
Anna, or even with Mary, the Lord's mother. It 
was not dark, as the former ages had been. The 
Messiah was now better understood. He was to be 
Mary’s son — a poor man instead of a royally clad 
prince. He was to baptize with the Holy Ghost, 
whatever that might mean, and this is the time he 
is to be made manifest to Israel. These and many 
other things were lights far in advance of other 
years. But it is not day yet; much is still hidden 
from mortal knowledge, but the first covenant has 
faded down to the late evening, and the closing days 
of the dispensation are at hand. A few more days, 
and John will retire to the grave; old Simeon and 
Anna, happy with the honors conferred, have lain 
down in prophets’ tombs to await further develop- 
ments in the grave. Jesus is before the public; his 
fan is in his hand; he is purging his floor. Soon 
all Judea is wild with commotion. His deeds of 
power and love have startled the sleeping nation, 
and on the wing of the whirlwind he is hurried on 
to Calvary and death. He has lashed the ocean of 
life into raging billows. Now the waves of the 
troubled sea are stilled. Jesus is dead, earth is si- 
lent, heaven is noteless, and hell, gloated to satiety 
by its feast of blood divine, lulls into sullen slum- 
ber. It is the evening of the first covenant; but 
the morning dawns. 

It was evening — the hour of silence and rest. 
Jesus rested in the tomb. But if it were the dark- 
ening hour of the first testament, it was also the 
dawn of the new testament — the kingdom of heav- 


'j24 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


en. On the third day Jesus awaked from that rest- 
ful sleep in the borrowed tomb of Joseph to seize 
the throne of an endless ‘empire — -one whose bound- 
aries should extend from hell’s burning border to 
the limits of God’s immensity. This Isaiah saw 
from the watch-tower of ancient prophecy. He saw 
God laying his hand on the jaws of death and lift- 
ing his dead Son out of the mouth of hell, re-endowed 
with life and crowned with victory. lie shouted to 
Zion through the mist of intervening ages: “Arise, 
shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the 
Lord is risen upon thee. For, behold, the darkness 
shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: 
but the Lord shall arise upon thee; and his glory 
shall be seen upon thee.” 

Here is the risen Christ and the glorious Pente- 
cost and the divine baptism — the kingdom of heav- 
en. This is a state -of the Church which is com- 
pared to-day; Jesus is its light. “The Gentiles 
shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness 
of thy rising.” “ The sun shall be no more thy light 
by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give 
light unto thee.” For the first testament and cove- 
nant were but a subdued light comparable to the sun 
and moon, being of a worldly nature — elements of 
the world, but “the Lord shall be unto thee an ever- 
lasting light, and thy God thy glory.” This is the 
heavenly state of things set out in type by the holy 
of holies in the old temple. The least one in this 
temple is greater than John the Baptist, and John 
was greater than all his predecessors, Abel and 
Enoch included. Enoch was translated, and Elijah 


John the Baptist. 


225 


went up in the chariot of God. They were honored 
far beyond their fellow-servants, but were neverthe- 
less only servants, whilst the Christian of the second 
covenant is the child of God, adopted and washed 
by the Holy Ghost. Translation does not mean 
sanctification; it is only a mode of death. John 
was greater than Enoch and Elijah, but John died 
a bloody death. Those old heroes of the first cov- 
enant did not die a natural death; they went away 
to the place where God had designed to keep his 
servants of that age by means of that particular 
form of death. But if those holy servants were so 
highly honored under that imperfect and initiatory 
state of the Church, what a sunburst of glory must 
await one who is inwardly sanctified by the Holy 
Ghost, when the eye closes on mortal scenes! 

15 


CHAPTER XXVII. 


The Apostle Peter. 

R ASH, impulsive Peter! he was a man of faults, 
but that only proves his humanity. With all 
his faults he was of sterling value. Perhaps he was 
not more faulty than other disciples; only his bold, 
impulsive nature gave to him greater prominence. 
But Jesus made a wise choice in Peter. He saw 
qualities suited to the apostolic work, and more than 
in others he saw in Peter such material as would, 
when duly refined by the incoming power of the 
Holy Ghost, fit him for the especial office of hold- 
ing the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; wherefore 
the keys were delivered to him. It was to the col- 
lege of apostles that Jesus gave authority to “ bind 
on earth, ” and it should be “bound in heaven,” not 
to Peter alone. That is, they were to frame the 
laws of the kingdom under the constitution which 
Jesus had furnished them, which would govern the 
judgment of the last day. But an exclusive honor 
was reserved for Peter: he should unlock the doors 
of the kingdom. To this time the kingdom had 
been locked. The “hidden mystery from the foun- 
dation of the world ” was to be opened to the na- 
tions by Peter. Jesus would invest the disciples 
with the long deferred secret — the baptism of the 
Holy Ghost at the Pentecost — but this was only its 
( 22 6 ) 


The Apostle Peter. 


227 


introduction into the elect nation of the Jews, to 
whom the kingdom pertained by right of election. 
This done, and rejected by them, it should be pro- 
claimed to Gentiles as well, and Peter was to cham- 
pion this very un-Jewlike measure. 

The great persecutions inaugurated in the blood 
and tears of holy Stephen placed Philip in Samaria, 
probably at Sychar, where he preached Jesus. If 
Samaria be reckoned a Gentile nation, this is the 
first preaching of the gospel to Gentiles under the 
newly developed system. The burden of Philip’s 
preaching was faith in Jesus; he also wrought mir- 
acles. The people heard him gladly; they believed 
and were baptized. So also the sorcerer Simon. The 
news was carried to Jerusalem. “Now when the 
apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Sama- 
ria had received the word of God, they sent unto them 
Peter and John : who, when they were come down, 
prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy 
Ghost: (for as yet he was fallen on none of them: only 
they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) ” 
Now we reach the point of difficulty. The word had 
been preached by Philip; they had believed and were 
baptized in the name of Jesus, but the Holy Ghost 
had fallen on none of them. The law of the kingdom 
is that the baptism of the Holy Ghost follows the act 
of faith in Jesus immediately; but that law was not 
yet in universal effect. No doubt such effect would 
have promptly followed faith with a Jew, for the 
kingdom had been duly opened to them; but Peter, 
with his key, had not yet been to Samaria. Philip 
was not authorized to open the door of the genuine 


228 


Behold the Lamb of God ! 


kingdom; he could preach Jesus and work miracles 
and baptize with water, but that divine glory that 
enters one’s heart and lights up all the dark nature 
did not follow except where Peter went. This the 
apostles recognized; therefore Peter was sent to open 
the door to the Samaritans, and the Holy Ghost fell 
on them. 

But Samaria is unique in nationality and religion. 
It was a composite blood of Jew and Gentile, and 
its religion was a like mixture. They repudiated 
the Jew and Jerusalem, but claimed Jacob as “our 
father.” The introduction of the gospel to them 
was quite in keeping with the style of their rela- 
tionship to Israel’s religion. At the Pentecost, when 
the apostles were first baptized with the Holy Ghost, 
Peter preached the great inaugural sermon to Israel, 
and about five thousand were that day added to the 
Church. When Samaria was to be evangelized, Pe- 
ter was necessary. When the pure Gentile races 
were to receive. the Holy Ghost, Peter was sent to 
Cornelius. Thus was the world now opened, and 
the word had free course. 

It is supposed that the Philip of the Samaritan 
revival was the deacon of that name, and therefore, 
not being an apostle, could not be the medium in 
the Holy Ghost’s hands for communication. But 
by what authority can it be claimed that the gift of 
the Holy Ghost depended on the apostles? I know 
of no such authority. Peter alone held the key; it 
seemed that he should enjoy the distinction alone. 

That view is very unsatisfactory which draws a 
distinction between the ordinary grace of the Spirit 


The Apostle Peter . 


229 


and the “extraordinary grace,” limiting the extra 
power to the apostles, if such distinction be intend- 
ed to apply to the Church of the new testament. 
The distinction is true, if applied to the difference 
in the old and the new covenants. But under the 
second covenant there is no such distinction in 
grace. We readily admit a difference in gifts, but 
not in grace, except in degree as between regenera- 
tion and sanctification. The apostles themselves 
differed greatly in gifts. Peter, beyond doubt en- 
joyed the highest gifts of miracles, and he enjoyed 
the special gift of being a medium of national com- 
munication of the Holy Ghost. But when the Gen- 
tiles had received the blessing in one single repre- 
sentation, any believer called to the work might 
become the Spirit’s instrument for the further con- 
version of such Gentiles. 

It will be observed that as soon as Philip was dis- 
charged from his Samaritan engagement, he was 
sent south to intercept the Ethiopian officer. That 
officer was converted under Philip’s preaching, and 
was baptized, and went on his way rejoicing. It is 
not stated that he was baptized with the Holy Ghost, 
but the circumstances indicate as much. Was the 
Ethiopian a Gentile? It is not improbable that he 
was a Jew. His having a copy of the Book of Isa- 
iah, and the interest he took in it, justify the conclu- 
sion. That he was an Ethiopian eunuch may be 
accounted for in the probable circumstance that he 
may have been a captive Jew in youth, and was 
made a eunuch because he was a foreigner, brought 
up in the queen’s employ, and finally succeeded to 


230 


Behold the Lamb of God ! 


bis high estate. He was too devoted to be an Ethi- 
opian by blood. If a Jew, then Philip was the me- 
dium through whom he received the baptism of the 
Holy Ghost, while such phenomenon did not attend 
that apostle’s ministry in Samaria. The kingdom 
of heaven had already been opened to the Jews by 
Peter, whereas the case was otherwise at Samaria. 
The mixed crowd that heard Peter on the day of 
Pentecost were Jews — devout Jews from every na- 
tion, who had come to Jerusalem to worship or 
study religion in the school of the State. 


CHAPTER XXVIII. 


Imprisoned Spirits. 


N 1 Peter iii. 19 we have a statement which, 



JL though obscure and perplexing, stands to-day as 
a part of divine revelation, and demands the thought 
of Biblical critics; it means something. Various ef- 
forts have been made to relieve the darkness that 
gathers about it; but it is a stone of such curious 
form that the workmen who are erecting the tem- 
ple of theology have not found a place in the wall 
where it will fit. It has been forced into this and 
that place at different times, but on close inspec- 
tion it will be found that the artisan has reworked 
it, striking off corners to make it fit. It was origi- 
nally worked out by Peter in the quarry, numbered 
and marked with a skill divine, and must not be 
forced to suit a theory. If the theory is divine, 
this divinely wrought stone will fit exactly when 
put in the right place. Let us analyze the text: 

(1) The spirits to whom Christ preached were in 
prison; (2) the prisoners to whom he preached 
were spirits; (3) they had been disobedient while 
in the flesh; (4) their disobedience was in the days 
of Noah, while the ark was preparing; (5) the dis- 
obedience seems to consist in a failure to accept 
Noah’s preaching; (6) Noah’s preaching was spe- 
cific, and not the gospel as we now have it; (7) he 


( 231 ) 


232 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


offered them a temporal salvation, and not a spirit- 
ual one, as the facts recorded in Genesis show; (8) 
this preaching on the part of Christ was not to liv- 
ing men, but to spirits; (9) the time of this preach- 
ing was not in Noah’s day, but is subsequent to 
Christ’s death, as the event is coupled with the 
quickening of his dead body by the Spirit; (10) the 
spirits preached to were spirits, and were under 
some sort of enforced restraint — imprisoned — such 
is not true of the living men of Noah’s day; (11) 
the date of the disobedience is located when God 
was exercising a special forbearance. This com- 
ports well with the provisional state of grace under 
the first covenant. 

From these considerations the text fits well into 
the theory that Jesus explained the divine plan of 
salvation after his death to those who died in igno- 
rance thereof before his advent, and gave them the 
opportunity of accepting the Holy Sacrifice. 

I. S. Drake, in the South-western. Christian Advo- 
cate, makes the following argument: 

I must dissent from the views expressed by your Utah cor- 
respondent, although they may have been indorsed by John 
"Wesley and Adam Clarke, that Christ went in spirit and 
preached, through Noah, to the spirits of living men during the 
time the ark was preparing, and that those persons were regard- 
ed as in prison. This is certainly a strained and unreasonable 
exposition of the passage referred to in Peter, besides at variance 
with most of the best authorities. It will be observed that it 
reads : “ For Christ, . . . being put to death, . . . went 
and preached unto spirits in prison.” Strange that any one 
should conclude from this language that he went long ages before 
he was put to death, and preached to men in the flesh upon the 
earth. Dr. Coke, who ought to be accepted as good authority, 
commenting upon this text, remarks : “ The word spirit is com- 


Imprisoned Spirits. 


233 


monly applied by ancient writers not to living men, but to men 
after they are dead. Plato terms the place where wicked men 
are detained after death the prison, which they called Tartarus ; 
and afterward speaks of wicked men deceased as in hades, in 
prison. Aristotle also used the phrase ‘to be in prison’ con- 
• cerning the dead. . . . The persons here spoken of are 

termed spirits in prison — that is, who are now in prison, though 
they formerly lived in bodies upon the earth, and were disobe- 
dient in the days of Noah, all the while the ark "was preparing. 
We find the word ‘prison’ used concerning wicked spirits (Rev. 
xxiii. 2 ; also xx. 7) ; and the same word is applied to wicked 
men after they are dead. The Syriac version has rendered the 
passage thus: ‘ He -preached to those souls which were (or are) 
detained in sheol or hades— that is, to the wicked men who are 
now spirits, confined in their proper place in the state of the 
dead.’ ” Lange has a remark of similar import : “ But this prison 
must be in the realms of death. (2 Pet. ii. 4.) This evidently fol- 
lows also from the comparison with 1 Peter iv. 6, and Jude 6.” 

That the phrase “while the ark was preparing ” 
is intended to limit this divine favor to those who 
heard Noah’s warning is debatable. It is most 
probably a general expression referring to the 
whole dispensation, in which Noah and the ark 
figured as the most prominent feature. Noah and 
the ark stand for the age, as Moses is often made 
to stand for the dispensation of law. 

It is a fair presumption that of the millions who 
lived in Noah’s day only eight souls had the true 
idea of God. All the rest were disobedient, even 
to the light the age afforded. That which kept 
Noah in the true faith was sufficient for all. of 
them; but, except the eight, all else were disobedi- 
ent. The true idea of God was rapidly declining, 
and the presumption is that but for the wholesale 
destruction by the flood a few generations later, 


234 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


the true idea of God would have been lost upon the 
earth. Can one contemplate the thought without 
a shudder of horror? To what depths of degrada- 
tion would man fall! ay, to what had he already 
fallen! Glimpses of society in the brief annals of 
those a^es show a condition little less than bedlam 
itself. Idolatry and ignorance were probably uni- 
versal save in the family of Noah, and every vice 
conceivable to the human passions was practiced. 

This deluge was only in the nature of a civil 
judgment for the benefit of society, and not as a 
punishment for sin against God; for God’s govern- 
ment of man at this time was purely theocratic, and 
sins were dealt with in the theocratic government 
only as civil events, and not as for final judgment 
of the soul. The soul could not be pure, for the 
purifying process had not been developed; there- 
fore man would be judged no farther than his fa- 
cilities for obedience had been guaranteed. Civil 
statutes he could obey; to these he was held bound, 
and should be judged accordingly. 

To punish a whole race with death was indeed a 
terrible judgment, and could only be justified on 
the ground of necessity. Did such necessity exist? 
To decide this question one must know as God 
knows, and see the events as he saw them. In the 
light of revelation it presents this aspect : “ Is it 
better to allow all mankind in all succeeding: asres 
to be a race of incarnate devils without the possi- 
bility of reformation and happiness, or to destroy 
the present generation that those of the future 
may enjoy the light of education, morality, and 


Imprisoned Spirits. 


235 


Christianity? ” The wisdom of God answered in 
the dreadful flood. For, as things were going, I can 
see no hope for the race without this flood. Noah 
now could train the rising generation in a true 
faith, which faith should be the seed of all future 
greatness and blessings. But the catastrophe is 
greatly mitigated when it turns out that those de- 
stroyed millions were not in fact destroyed, but 
only put into a reformatory prison where they 
would cease to do harm, and would be trained to 
do good and learn the wisdom of God. 

Now after Christ had finished all his preparatory 
work he entered on the sweet and loving work of 
saving the imprisoned souls. Hence Peter, in the 
next chapter, by way of continuing his first obser- 
vations on this point, says: “Who shall give ac- 
count to him that is ready to judge the quick and 
the dead. For, for this cause was the gospel 
preached also to them that are dead, that they 
might be judged according to men in the flesh, but 
alive according to God in the Spirit.” This view 
will commend itself to the reader when it is re- 
membered that the Church before Christ was inert, 
non-aggressive, always semi-political, and seemed 
not interested in the world’s conversion; that its 
principal work was to check idolatry, and that 
chiefly by the establishment of a nation called Isra- 
el. In other words, the efforts put forth to save 
men before Christ came seem wholly disprepor- 
tioned to the awful doom of the millions dying in sin, 
if dying then fixed their destiny for eternity. For in 
that age they were without law, the commandment 


236 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


not having come. But when we observe that the 
age was only preparatory for the thrilling events of 
the last great testament, that God ruled them as 
a civil ruler with their rewards and punishments 
only for this world, that he was not interested for 
their future welfare after death, further than to 
prepare them and the world for the coming of Je^ 
sus the Christ, and that to Christ would be left the 
entire work of saving man’s soul, we can see a har- 
mony and consistency in all that God has done. 

In this view also Jesus rises to stupendous im- 
portance in our esteem, and the new testament is 
hailed as the jubilee of earth and the best thought 
of God. Those terrific acts of the old testament as- 
cribed to God lose their harshness when viewed as 
merely civil acts. Those ages were barbarian. It 
is well known that harsh governments are essential 
to barbarian peoples. This ancient form of the di- 
vine government is a miracle of tenderness and se- 
verity combined. Under the law a man was stoned 
to death for gathering a little fuel on the Sabbath- 
day. This seems terrible. The penalty appears to 
be wholly disproportioned to the offense; but in 
the same volume is the beautiful provision of the 
cities of refuge. How can two laws so antipodal 
in nature exist in the same economy? Where did 
Moses get his precedent? No nation had such. 
They are original with Israel; but they were reve- 
lations; and, while they served the ends of a civil 
polity, they foreshadowed events of the second tes- 
tament. The redemption of Christ is the city of 
refuge; the awful demands of natural justice, after 


Imprisoned Spirits. 


237 


the rejection of atoning grace, are set out by the 
hard and exacting law of the Sabbath. So all 
those strange and seemingly harsh proceedings un- 
der the first testament have a twofold significance. 
They were needful for the government of a rude 
and barbarous people, and showed how severely 
man is to be dealt with by the general laws of nat- 
ure after the mediatorial kingdom has served its 
ends, and the Son himself shall become subject to 
the Father. Of course this post-mortem redemption 
and preaching is limited to the first covenant. Death 
now forms the boundary line of mercy, since atone- 
ment has been perfected, and the Spirit is a univer- 
sal gift, in a measure sufficient for the purpose of 
the final judgment. 


CHAPTER XXIX. 


The Skin Bottles of Moses and the Ciders. 

T Matthew ix. 16, 17 Jesus draws a sharp dis- 



f~\ tinction between his personal administration 
and that of both John, Moses, and the Pharisees. 
Ilis purpose was not to condemn John and Moses, 
but to contrast them with himself. The disciples of 
John, such of them as still adhered to him, inquired 
of him : “ Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but 
thy disciples fast not?” Trained in a system of 
works through which divine things were dimly and 
distantly seen by faith, they, human-like, regarded 
their works as the cause of their salvation. So he 
that fasted or suffered most for religious reasons 
was the holiest. This is a carnal view of religion, 
and very well suited to the carnal nature of the Mo- 
saic or provisional system. But if Christ were to 
mean any thing more than a wise and powerful 
civil ruler, that other meaning, whatever it maybe, 
must find explanation in the uncarnal or spiritual 
nature of the religion which he bestowed at his 
coming. 

The answer that he may give to John’s disciples 
affords a favorable occasion for light on this point; 
but he answers in parables. He was the best judge 
of the mode of answer. A direct answer would not 
have been best; but through the lattice- work of 


( 238 > 


The Skin Bottles of Moses and the Elders. 239 


parable shines the subdued truth. He was training 
his disciples for a higher plane of life. lie would 
have their minds, hearts, and faith fixed on himself. 
They were to do nothing but “learn of me,” as if 
he said, “ I will teach humility in a better school 
than that of fasting. Fasting can be done by any 
human being, but to prepare the heart for a true 
and effective fast something else must be done, and 
that something is my work. ‘ Learn of me, for I am 
meek and lowly of heart.’” Troud and boastful 
Pharisees could cover up their foul hearts with sol- 
emn semi-weekly fasts, that garnished the soul as 
whited Sepulchers covered the corruption of the 
grave. “ I am come to prepare men for fasting in 
the spirit of a heavenly humility. It will not need 
to be seen or known of man; but the time for the 
final lesson is not yet. I am still with them; soon 
I will be taken away; then will the children fast.” 
That is, the disciples will be baptized with the Holy 
Ghost and made new. The} 7 will be holy indeed, 
and will be able by the spiritual intuitions with- 
in them to discriminate between a duty and the 
cause of holy life. They will realize that Jesus by 
the Holy Ghost is the only cause of holiness, and 
that fasting is a human means by which the faith is 
sometimes aided in its effort tb lay hold on the sanc- 
tifying power of the living Son of God. 

The new power which Jesus was about to turn 
upon the world would illy suit the antiquated cus- 
toms of an effete period. The old garments of Mo- 
ses would not bear the new cloth; the old skin bot- 
tles would burst if the wine of the now fermenting 


240 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


kingdom of heaven were poured into them. The 
customs of the law are not adapted to the new de- 
velopment. 

Certain Judaizing teachers sought to pour the 
new wine into the old bottle of circumcision, and 
Paul appealed to the conference of apostles at Jeru- 
salem. These sought light in prayer, and the Spir- 
it bade them say, through their chairman, James: 
“Wherefore my sentence is that we trouble not 
them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to 
God : but that we write them that they abstain from 
pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from 
things strangled, and from blood.” This sentence 
was largely influenced by a speech made by Peter 
to the Conference, who, among other things, said: 
“Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a yoke 
upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fa- 
thers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that 
through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall 
be saved even as they.” They were saved by obedi- 
ence to the forms, through grace; we, without the 
forms. 

Peter was fresh from the scene of the conversion 
of Cornelius, where he had witnessed the utter in- 
adequacy of old bottles. lie was himself a zealous 
advocate for the old ways, but the vision on the 
j house-top at Joppa dispelled his prejudices and 
| opened up a better view of the kingdom to him. 
Cornelius, with his family, friends, and household, 
had been accepted of God in a new way, wholly dif- 
ferent from all legal requirements, and were made 
holy by faith in Jesus and the baptism of the Holy 


The Skin Bottles of Moses and the Elders. 241 


Ghost, without sacrifices of beast or circumcision or 
water. All this he recited in his speech, and so by 
sentence of James the old bottles were laid in the 
cellar, and the new garments of holiness were to be 
made of whole cloth— the blood of the Son of God 
accepted by faith. The keys of the kingd om were 
given to Peter; he had thus unlocked the long hid 
mystery, and the apostles by this sentence were 
loosing and binding according to the laws of the 
heavenly kingdom. 

‘*0 foolish Galatians,” cried Paul, as he wept 
over his backslidden children, “ who hath bewitched 
you that ye should not obey the truth, before whose 
eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, cru- 
cified amongst you. This only would I learn of you, 
Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law or 
by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having 
begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect in the 
flesh? ” lie urges them to “ stand fast in the liber- 
ty wherewith Christ hath ’made you free,” and af- 
firmed that if they now sought justification by obe- 
dience to law they were backslidden — “ fallen from 
grace.” 

And may I not here remind the reader that a like 
sad case of wrecked Christianity is common in the 
Church to-dav — Christians who started risdit: They 
repented and pleaded nothing but Jesus when they 
experienced the blessed renewal of their souls into 
the life of Christ. Then they began to work. This 
was right, but, alas! it was not long till, forgetting 
that they had nothing but Jesus’ love to depend on 
at first, they now begin to substitute their own works 
16 


242 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


in lieu of that blood. “ Why,” says one who had 
once been made white in the blood of the Lamb, “ I 
give tithes of all I possess, I fast often, I pray fre- 
quently, I keep the Sabbath strictly, I look after 
the poor; therefore I am good.” “ These,” indeed, 
“ ought ye to have done,” I grant, but whoever 
looks to aught else than the cleansing blood of Jesus 
to make him good and keep him so is fallen from 
grace. One may indeed do good works whereby one 
will be judged, but Jesus’ blood and the Holy Ghost 
only are the powers that make and keep the soul. 

One must be oblivious to every species of self- 
righteousness before Jesus can be clearly apprehend- 
ed as a Saviour, and to do this effectually, in the case 
of the disciples, Jesus would encourage nothing in 
them of a religious nature beyond the observance of 
law as -a Jewish polity, that they might the more 
readily trust his blood when the fullness of the times 
had come. Such fasting as the disciples of John 
referred to was not a legal requirement; it was re- 
ligion in the Pharisaical sense — self-righteousness. 


CHAPTER XXX. 


Cain and Abel. 

S OCINIANS deny the divinity of Christ. They 
do so to make their theory of salvation harmo- 
nious. They do not believe in a vicarious sacrifice 
of Christ, and are influenced in this unbelief chiefly 
because they see, as they suppose, that the patri- 
archs were finally saved before the sacrifice of Jesus 
was offered. If men were saved before there was 
any divine sacrifice, where is the need of one? The 
orthodox Fathers would never admit any salvation 
except through the atonement of Christ; and, as 
many persons whom they esteem good and holy 
died before Jesus was crucified, and believing them 
to be finally saved at the time of their death, were 
compelled to invent a theory in harmony with such 
preconceived views or adopt Socinianism. Hence 
they say God must have made atonement before 
Christ’s death, and have revealed more of Jesus to 
the patriarchs than is recorded in the Old Testa- 
ment, and to support this theory rely on Abel’s 
sacrifice and the religious ceremonies of his day. 
They admit that the patriarchs had an imperfect 
knowledge of Christ, but believed they were assured 
in some mysterious and unpublished way that Je- 
sus saved them. This conclusion is founded chiefly 
on the existence of sacrifices, coupled with certain 

( 243 ) 


244 


Behold the Lamb of God ! 


other religious acts of that day. Abel’s offerings 
furnish perhaps the most conclusive evidence. Of 
this it is declared that God testified to Abel that 
his offering was more excellent than Cain’s, and 
that it was an offering of faith. This is quite true, 
but it should be remembered that these statements 
are made by one who lived in the Christians’ day 
and saw the facts in the light of fulfillment, and 
not in their original nudity. 

The question now to determine is, Do the cir- 
cumstances of the offerings of Cain and Abel, as 
seen in the light of Genesis, afford sufficient evi- 
dence that these patriarchs knew enough of Christ 
to exercise a saving faith in him? And when I 
say saving faith I mean the faith of the Christian, a 
faith that comprehends the truth that Jesus is our 
Redeemer. 

Take the narrative just as we find it in Genesis, 
unconnected with the light subsequent develop- 
ments cast on it. Study it as the two brothers may 
be supposed to have studied it, if nothing more 
was known of it than that which appears in the 
original statement. I do not deny that the sacri- 
fice of Abel was typical of Christ, or that God tes- 
tified of its acceptance. I admit these facts, and I 
admit still further that the Holy Ghost knew all 
about its signification, that God designed it for 
typical and highly religious purposes. But the 
question is, TTow far were the brothers informed of 
the 'designs of the Holy One? It will hardly be de- 
nied that the entire transaction is capable of being 
intelligibly understood by the patriarchs as a relig- 


Cain and Abel. 


245 


ious ceremony wholly aside from what ulterior de- 
signs the Holy Spirit may have entertained. 

Let us now study the incident as a literal theo- 
cratic transaction, and then examine the ulterior 
designs of the Deity. First, the whole affair indi- 
cates the ceremonies of a great State occasion. It 
occurred in “ process of time.” This phrase is 
claimed to be a Hebraism, meaning “in end of 
days,” or an appointed occasion of national impor- 
tance. The race had been in existence a length of 
time sufficient to justify a considerable population. 
The two brothers were well advanced in years, the 
“ end of days ” had come — 'a change probably of ad- 
ministration. It is probable that one of two events 
was about to take place — either that a successor to 
Adam’s throne was to be nominated, or that a 
priesthood was to be established. The choice was 
to be made by the Deity. Adam, probably officiat- 
ing as Samuel did in later years when God made 
choice of Saul and David, summoned his people to 
a great meeting “in process of time,” and narrow- 
ing the choice down to his two elder sons, as God 
afterward limited Samuel to Jesse’s family, com- 
manded them to appear before God with appropri- 
ate offerings. Thankfulness to God is an element 
of worship capable without any direct knowledge 
of Christ. This we see even now in the history of 
heathen nations. Therefore, under the supposition 
that the brothers knew nothing of Jesus, they 
might still be expected to bring with them offer- 
ings of gratitude to God. It should be remem- 
bered also that these acts of worship are not called 


24G 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


sacrifices in Genesis; they are uniformly called 
“ offerings. ” Paul in a later light called them sac- 
rifices. In the Spirit’s mind they were sacrifices, 
and Paul had obtained information of what the 
Spirit intended, and so called them by their typical 
name. But the brothers themselves, I am suppos- 
ing, knew not the Holy Spirit’s final designs, but 
only saw so much of them as was revealed, and 
that was only for present purposes — a purpose to 
serve the ends of the present theocracy. There- 
fore they called them offerings, and not sacrifices . 
In pursuance of the idea of offerings, a grateful act 
of worship, each brought to the occasion such gifts 
as his calling in life seemed to indicate. It was 
natural that Cain should bring fruits of the field, 
for he was a farmer. It was equally natural that 
Abel should bring of his flocks, for he was a stock- 
raiser. No doubt each was a magnificent gift, con- 
sidering the date of the affair. 

Whatever the favor might be that was to be 
awarded that day, it was undoubtedly considered 
of great value, and Cain’s heart was set on obtain- 
ing it. It was certainly an event connected with 
State affairs. Abel’s offering was accepted, and 
God made choice of him, testifying of his gift that 
it was more excellent than his brother’s. How the 
testimony was given we are not informed; but it 
was an external manifestation of approval. It 
may have been by fire, as in the cases of Abraham 
and Elijah’s sacrifices; it may have been by the 
presence of an angel, as with Manoah. But what- 
ever it was, the evidence was conclusive and settled 


Cain and Abel. 


247 


the question of choice. Cain was greatly disap- 
pointed. He was the oldest son. lie had some 
right, as he thought, to the office. It Avas a clear 
case of political jealousy. Abel Avas to have do- 
minion. This is clearly inferable from God’s state- 
ment to Cain: “If thou doest well, shalt thou not 
be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth 
at the door: and unto thee shall be his desire, and 
thou shalt rule over him.” The real sense of this 
text seems to be this: “ If you had been the right 
sort of man, you would have been accepted; but 
you depended more on your seniority than on 
character. You are too sinful. Sin Avas in your 
way; it lay at the door-way of acceptance, and 
barred your entrance. You could have ruled your 
brother, and his desire would have been toward 
you; he would have accepted you as a ruler, but 
now you have lost your opportunity, and he will 
rule you.” Cain’s countenance became dark. He 
was meditating revenge. There was no doubt a 
rivalry between these brothers for whatever office 
there was to be bestowed on this occasion, and the 
rivalry was settled by some token of God in favor 
of Abel. God testifying of his gift pronounced it 
better suited than Cain’s. 

The second thing settled was the Christian char- 
acter of religious sacrifice. It should be a blood- 
offering. The reason was not given, but the Spirit 
knew. 

Sacrifice, it is fair to presume, whatever its origin 
may have been, had to this date risen no higher 
than a mere thank-offering to God; it was a gift to 


248 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


God, of which God in Abel’s case “ testified.’’ The 
testimony gave to Abel an assurance that his con- 
duct in life was upright — a pure life, resulting from 
his great faith in God. 

Both brothers evidently esteemed the favor of 
God very highly. Surely Cain’s after conduct 
evinced the greatest interest in the result of the 
occasion. Would he come to the offering and altar 
with open contempt of the will of God, bringing 
merely vegetables, when he had been directed by 
specific revelation to provide a blood-sacrifice? I 
think not. He was too anxious about results for 
that. We are forced to conclude either (1) that 
the brothers had no instructions as to the 'kind of 
offering they should make; or, (2) that Abel had 
such w T hile Cain had not; or, (8) that, both having 
instructions from God to provide animal blood, Cain 
came with vegetables in contempt of instructions, 
and yet was extremely solicitous about results; so 
much so that he became desperate after his failure, 
and murdered his rival. 

Finally, if the occasion of the offering had been 
only an ordinary morning or evening worship, a 
preference of Abel’s offering would not probably 
have so affected Cain, since no more depended on 
it than a mere temporary reproof. He could easily 
amend the matter in an hour’s time; and if he 
were so wicked as to act in open and conscious 
contempt of God’s commands, why should he be so 
troubled about the failure? why should he care 
whether God approved him or not? If he so high- 
ly prized the divine favor, he would certainly have 
complied with the will of Grod. 


Cain and Abel. 


249 


Every thing about these offerings indicates that 
it was a State occasion, and that, while God chose 
Abel, he also established the typical character of 
sacrifices. Character was the basis of the choice. 
Cain was a bad man. “If thou doest well, shalt 
thou not be accepted?” Abel was pious. Abel 
was best suited to govern; and, although ignorant 
of Christ and the sacrificial character of his own 
offering, he believed and obeyed God, and was best 
suited to govern the empire. His blood indeed 
spoke good things, but the blood of Christ “ speak- 
eth better things.” 

But what can Socinians make of this as against 
the divinity of Christ, when by this theory right- 
eous Abel finds himself washed by the blood — in 
future ages — which his sacrifice really foreshad- 
owed, though unknown to him as such? lie was 
righteous because he promptly performed whatever 
God by angels or prophets commanded him to do, 
which seems not to be true of Cain. Cain’s after 
course gives the clue to his former life: punctilious, 
perhaps, in offerings and in such duties as were rit- 
ualistic, but cruel, unjust in dealing, and unfit to be 
at the head of the nation. Abel’s offering did not 
make him righteous; neither did Cain’s make him 
sinful, for Abel’s offering was only “ more excel- 
lent; ” Cain’s was excellent. 

Hor did it simply happen that the man of suit- 
able character offered the sacrifice best adapted to 
prefigure the coming sacrifice. It was God’s pur- 
pose. This was the age of election. God’s per- 
sonal interference in the commonest concerns of 


250 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


life indicates the theocratic character of the civil 
government. This theocracy, like the religion of 
the day, was also provisional. God ruled not alone 
by his Spirit, but by angels as his ministers. As 
Paul says, “It was an administration of angels.’’ 

Cain was a vicious and violent man. After the 
murder of his brother it is probable he tyrannized 
his aged father and subjected the race to his domin- 
ion. The murder of Abel was secret. Afterward, 
when the angel of the Lord demanded of Cain to 
give an account of his brother Abel, he denied any 
knowledge of him. But God knew, and the angel 
declared: “The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth 
unto me from the ground.” Having disposed of 
his brother and, as is probable, seized the reins of 
government, Cain felt secure on his throne, and 
had little compunction of conscience. But God 
punished him by banishment. This is not a penalty, 
for Cain had violated no law except that of nature. 
But God would not let him usurp the throne, and 
enjoy the fruit of his wicked act; so he was ban- 
ished. Now that his crime was known, and he 
had not the authority of ruler, he gives way to 
fear, exclaiming in cowardly dismay: “Every one 
that findeth me shall slay me.” No doubt there 
was much feeling against him after the facts 
were made known, and danger threatened. But 
God would protect him. He was sent away with 
his wife and family to an uninhabited wilderness, 
where he was permitted to found a kingdom 
of his own. Some unexplained mark was put on 
him that identified him as specially protected from 


Cain and Abel. 


251 


the sword of his enemies. The kingdom he found- 
ed was extremely wicked, as might have been ex- 
pected, and tin al ly lapsed into universal idolatry. 
Its influence on the kingdom of Seth, who proba- 
bly succeeded Abel, was great, and finally it too 
fell into idolatry and became so corrupt that the 
true idea of God was almost lost from earth. The 
true idea of God was preserved probably only in 
the family of Noah. To save it from total extinc- 
tion, God in mercy sent the flood and rescued 
Noah’s family from the surrounding influence; but 
the progeny of Cain were all destroyed. Seth may 
not have been born when Abel died, but how much 
time elapsed between the murder of Abel and Cain’s 
expulsion from the kingdom we have no means of 
determining. If immediately, then it is probable 
Adam reigned till Seth was inaugurated. But it 
is clear that the two empires differed in religious 
character widely, and the difference is due to the 
founders. This difference continued till the amal- 
gamation of the tribes. 

“And it came to pass, when men began to multi- 
ply on the face of the earth, and daughters were 
born unto them, that the sons of God saw the 
daughters of men that they were fair; and they 
took them wives of all which they chose.” (Gen. 
vi. 1, 2.) This text is the only place before reach- 
ing the book of Job where the phrase “sons of 
God,” or any similar form of expression is used; 
and when we bear in mind that the Evangelist John 
declares that “ the Holy Ghost was not yet given, be- 
cause that Jesus was not yet glorified,” we are bound 


252 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


to explain the text in such wise as will harmonize 
with John’s statement. John’s word will bear no 
other interpretation than that which is on its face. 
But the phrase “sons of God” will bear several in- 
terpretations, and that one which conflicts with the 
evangelist must be rejected. There are but two be- 
sides — one is that of angelic relation, the other is 
that of legal obedience. Now, since the Bible could 
not in this place have been speaking of those who 
were made sons by adoption of the Holy Ghost as 
after Jesus was glorified, nor of angels, it must be 
speaking of those who like Abel obeyed according 
to the light given them under the particular cove- 
nant of their day. The phrase “ sons of God ” prob- 
ably described the race of Seth as distinguished f rom 
those of Cain and other sons of Adam. These latter 
were idolatrous, and in course of time the sons of the 
pious race intermarried with the daughters of the 
idolatrous races, which corrupted and proved the 
ruin of all. 

It was at this juncture that God declared: “My 
Spirit shall not always strive with man.” It should 
be borne in mind that this striving of the Spirit is 
not a baptism of the Holy Ghost. Of course the 
Spirit always existed, because he is God, and what- 
ever effect God has produced on the human mind 
at any age was by the Spirit enlightening the mind 
and producing conviction of sin. 

This is the function of the Spirit of God under 
all covenants; but the Spirit, in his office of baptizer, 
or purifier of human nature, is altogether different 
from that of “ striving.” As stated elsewhere, the 


Cain and Abel. 


253 


Spirit bad been given to inspire prophets and gen- 
erals, as in Moses s, Joshua’s, and Gideon’s cases; 
to make strong men, as in Samson’s case, while the 
moral nature was still unrenewed, as we now find it 
to be the privilege under the new testament. 

Noah’s family were the only descendants of Seth 
who were not now corrupted by the intermarrying 
of the tribes, and God determines on the overthrow 
of this well-nigh universal mass of human corrup- 
tion. Noah and his sons were now the only “sons 
of God.” The “sons of God” in Job, with whom 
Satan appeared when they worshiped, were men who 
served God according to the formulas of their age, 
and were obedient to what law they had. The cov- 
enant of that age and the Church which existed un- 
der it were carnal, and for that reason carnality was 
tolerated under them. The heart was hard — that 
is, unre«:enerated. It was not the office ot the 
Church at that time to purify and elevate humanity 
to the new testament standard — to a kingdom ot 
the nature of heaven; and for this cause we find 
many things done and tolerated that are not now 
allowable in a pure Christian. Slavery, polygamy, 
v.nd many other things flourished in the lives ot the 
<est models, and were tolerated by the laws of God. 


CHAPTER XXXI. 


Campbellism. 

P ERHAPS Mr. Campbell and his coadjutors en- 
tertained views resembling the theory set out 
in this volume, in so far as the development of the 
kingdom of heaven is directly treated; but what- 
ever the similarity in the premises, certainly there 
is a wide divergence in the deductions. While he 
sought to establish the difference between law and 
grace, and to define the religion of Christ as purely 
spiritual as distinguished from a ceremonial religion, 
he strangely enough barred against himself the very 
door he sought to open; for he limits the purifying 
power of the Holy Spirit to the apostles and the 
written word, instead of recognizing that limitless 
jurisdiction to which his premises naturally led him. 

Some have made the apostles the executors of the 
new testament. This is an unintentional profana- 
tion of the Iloly Spirit. The Holy Ghost is the ex- 
ecutor; he puts the divine testament in force — not 
man. It seems farcical to limit the divine work to 
the ceremony of baptism, when it ^vas a struggle of 
ages to bring truth up from the realm of rites and 
ceremonies, that it might shine forth in the uncloud- 
ed glory of pure spirituality; nothing but Scripture 
that cannot be otherwise explained should force 
such a theory. 

(254) 


Campbellism. 


255 


When Jesus had set his system in order, and 
when the details of his new and special testament 
had been definitely arranged, nothing of the carnal 
covenant was left save the dry and needless husks 
out of which the holy germ had broken. lie did 
indeed institute two sacraments — one of bread and 
wine, the other of water. Since he and the Holy 
Ghost were the antitypes of sacrifices and ceremo- 
nies, and now Avas himself about to be offered up, 
and the Spirit about to be given, he would set up 
a sign — the holy supper — that all who see it may 
know that sacrifices have ended in the shedding 
of his own blood. “As often as ye eat this bread, 
and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death.” 
“And,” as if he would say, “ as by a system of works 
heretofore ye received a ceremonial cleansing, but 
now that works have ceased as a cleansing process, 
and ye are to be cleansed by a baptism all divine, I 
set up another sign, Avhich signifies that Avorks as a 
means of cleansing have ceased forever — the sign of 
baptism.” By this act one will admit the necessity 
of a better cleansing: “For John truly baptized 
with water; but ye shall be baptized A\fith the Holy 
Ghost.” Whereas a multitude of signs typical have 
hitherto pointed forward to Jesus and the Holy Pu- 
rifier, so noAv two signs memorial shall look back to 
the finished hour of symbolic religion. Whoever 
receives baptism and the Lord’s Supper declares a 
faith in the finished sacrifice of the eternal Son and 
the purifying power of the Holy Ghost. They sig- 
nify a spiritual Avork as against a ceremonial Avork. 
If a spirituality Avas contemplated by the first cove- 


256 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


nant, to bo verified under the second, as Mr. Camp- 
bell properly taught, with what consistency can it 
be held that conversion under the second consists 
only in repentance, belief, and baptism in water? 
Is that not as certainly a carnal religion as was prac- 
ticed under the law? The water baptism does not 
spiritualize any more than circumcision did, because 
it too is earthly. Where then is the spirituality of 
the second covenant? We are told that “ the Spirit 
is in the word.” Very true; but the Spirit was in 
the old testament also, and if the Spirit is to be lim- 
ited to the book, the subject of that instruction is no 
more spiritual than he who heard the old prophets. 
Merely inspiring the new testament does by no 
means constitute a spiritual covenant. The old tes- 
tament was inspired by the Spirit, but it was not a 
spiritual covenant. Does a mere inspiration of the 
book write the law in the Christian’s heart and put it 
in the mind? If so, then the written books of the 
law and the prophets had the same effect on the 
people of that day, for those holy books were in- 
spired by the same Spirit. But Paul teaches that it 
did not; law makes nothing perfect. Circumcision 
was a seal of the righteousness which Abraham had ; 
be was righteous, and for that reason God com- 
manded him to be circumcised. So the sinner must 
become righteous before he is baptized; but if bap- 
tism be a condition, it precedes the righteousness. 
So under the theory I combat the righteousness of 
Abraham was more spiritual than ours, because it 
was purely of faith, while ours must be by the works 
of repentance and baptism resulting from faith. 


Cam pbellism. 


257 


This covenant is made more carnal than the for- 
mer covenant, and the testament of Jesus does no 
more than the testament in the blood of animals. 
Faith and repentance were as possible under the 
law as under grace, and of course baptism was al- 
ways accessible. So under this view the advent 
and death of Jesus Christ were facts without ef- 
fects. Under the testament of Moses man repent- 
ed, was pardoned, and ceremonially cleansed; and 
what more does Mr. Campbell’s system do for us 
under the second covenant and testament of blood 
divine, if the Holy Spirit does not purify the soul 
by direct impact? 

Job was declared by his Maker to be perfect, and 
many other examples of perfection are cited in the 
days of the first covenant, but such perfection re- 
lated to the system they were under. Judged by 
that system they were perfect ; but Campbellites are 
agreed with the position of this book that a higher 
and better system of Christian life has been revealed 
in the new covenant — a life of spirituality imparted 
by the Holy Ghost. Therefore perfection now is 
judged by a higher standard. Yet these brethren 
forestall their own reasoning when they limit the 
process of perfection to the carnal agency of bap- 
tism in water. 

17 


CHAPTER XXXII. 


Election 

A T different places in these pages allusion lias 
been made to “ callings,” “ election, r and “ pre- 
destination,” as these terms relate to the ante-mes- 
sianic people. Perhaps it would be best to treat the 
subject more directly, and not collaterally, that the 
reader may study it as it stands related to both cov- 
enants and testaments. 

It has been shown in previous chapters that every 
thing in the second covenant had its provisional an- 
tecedent, or type, in the first covenant. The lamb 
was Ch rist ; the sacrifice was the death of Jesus ; legal 
pardon stood for the new testament justification ; the 
sprinkling of blood and water baptism or washings 
represented the cleansing by the Holy Ghost; sancti- 
fication, or the “setting apart ” of the first covenant, 
prefigured consecration under the latter covenant; 
Israel itself represented the spiritual Church; the 
high -priest stood for Jesus, and the Levite for the 
ministry. So election under the first covenant stood 
for adoption under the spiritual covenant. 

Israel was elected or chosen in Jacob. Abel was 
the first case of election, Hoah the second, Abraham 
the third. Abel was elected because he was right- 
eous; righteousness was the cause of the election. 
It is said of Abraham: “I know him, that he will 


Election. 


259 


command bis children and bis household after 
him.” The knowledge God bad of Abraham’s char- 
acter was the cause of the selection; the same in 
the case of Noah. Here is election on account of 
merit; but the election of Abraham was in the nat- 
ure of a covenant; the patriarch was not elected to 
salvation until he died, but to be the head of a na- 
tion. II is election, like his faith, is typical of the 
Christian’s election and faith. The covenant feat- 
ures of the election on the part of God consisted in 
a promise that he would make a company of nations 
of Abraham's descendants, and especially would he 
make of Israel's blood a nation of peculiar favors-; 
that of this line of the patriarch's blood should be 
born one in whom all nations should be blest. 

In Isaac and Ishmael we notice election of a dif- 
ferent kind. This election was that the “purpose ” 
of God as promised to Abraham might be fulfilled 
without reference to volition in Isaac. The son of 
the bondwoman was not elected, but the non-elec- 
tion did not preclude Ishmael from divine favor; it 
only precluded him from the line of the descent to 
Jesus the son of Mary. So also Isaac’s election had 
nothing to do with his moral character further than 
it fixed him in the economic relations of the cove- 
nant. 

The same kind of election is seen in the twin sons 
of Isaac — Esau and Jacob. These children were the 
subjects of special interference on the part ot the 
Deity. But this interference proceeded not beyond 
the civil relations of the children. Esau was not to 
be the line of descent; Jacob was. That is the ex- 


260 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


tent of the election. Jacob was to be taken into the 
Abrahamic covenant, as that covenant related to the 
blood through which Messiah should appear. From 
this date no further divisions occurred in the Abra- 
hamic blood as by special election or decree of God. 
Jacob now came to be Israel , so that, in Jacob “ Is- 
rael ” became the elect of God; but this election did 
not necessarily effect the individual’s salvation, for 
Israelites were often as wicked as men could be, 
and were yet of the elect of God, and died so. Po- 
litically the nation was elected to fill a purpose of 
God. Individually they were not elected after Ja- 
cob’s election in a political sense, and, as we have 
seen, election in his case was purely political. 

How when Israel had served its purpose as a na- 
tion the secular covenant and election ceased. When 
the final object of all the covenants and types had 
come, symbolic Israel, with all its types and symbols, 
developed into the antetype Jesus Christ and the 
spiritual Israel — the Church of Christ. Now every 
thing is spiritualized. Water washing finds its an- 
tetype, the baptism of the Spirit; sanctification be- 
comes a state of inward purity; political election be- 
comes a spiritual adoption. The Spirit sets one 
aside from sinfulness to lead a holy personal life, 
and thus one is elected; it is the covenant privilege 
of the new testament. 

Jesus was God’s elect under the new covenant. 
See Isaiah xlii. 8; 1. 28; Malachi xii. 18. So when 
a Christian believes, he is elected, by reason of the 
grace that is in the elect Christ. This term “ elect ” 
or “election ” is, like “sanctification,” brought up 


Election. 


261 


from the nomenclature of the “ law,” or first cove- 
nant, and incorporated in the new and second cov- 
enant. The terms in the new testament mean the 
same that they did in the old testament, but the same 1 
thing is done in a better way and by a better proc- 
ess, and therefore is larger and better under the sec- 
ond than under the first. Election under the law 
was not a model; it was a type, and types and mod- 
els are very different. A type is a comparison ; a 
model is only a small edition of the identical thing. 
The Christian’s holiness and pardon and election are 
not identical with those things under the first cove- 
nant. They were types, and came short of the reali- 
ty, however real they were to the persons of that age. 
Election was economical then ; it is spiritual now. 
Then in some cases it was peremptory on the part of 
God ; now, as to adults, it depends on faith in Christ. 

When Peter addressed the “ elect according to the 
foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctifi- 
cation of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling 
of the blood of Jesus Christ,” he but spiritualized the 
legal word “ elect.” As the descendants of Abraham 
in the line of Jacob enjoyed a legal sanctification, 
so the Christians whom he now addressed enjoyed 
sanctification by the Holy Spirit, because of God’s 
covenant in his elect Son Je3us, who stands at the 
head of the second, as Abraham stood at the head 
of the first. Israelites were born into the election 
grace of the Abrahamic covenant without faith, re- 
quiring only circumcision after eight days, as to J 
males, to make -valid the election. Adults are born 
into the grace of the Christian covenant, through 


262 


Behold the Lamb of God ! 


faith, by the Holy Spirit. Reference is made by 
Peter to the knowledge God had of these things 
before Christ came. Foreknowledge in the Calvin - 
istic sense is incompatible with election. Election 
implies action, and if the knowledge existed before 
the act there was a time when the act did not exist. 
Foreknowledge must precede the action of election ; 
if so, then there was a time when God did not know 
of this election, because there was no election at the 
time; or else the election and foreknowledge came 
into existence at the same time, in which case the 
knowledge did not precede the election, and was 
therefore not foreknowledge. To say that both ex- 
isted from eternity is to destroy the nature of both. 
In that case knowledge is not before election, and 
election is an act without the foreknowledge of the 
actor. Put if we understand Peter to be merely 
spiritualizing a legal word, then we can paraphrase 
him thus: “Elect by sanctification of the Spirit, as 
was planned for future generations before Christ 
came.” This view is justified in the fact that Peter 
proceeds at once to open up this very connection 
between the two covenants, closing the chapter with 
that remarkable passage I have twice quoted in 
these pages, at 1 Peter i. 9-12. At verse 20, same 
chapter, it is said: “ who verily was fore-ordained,” 
etc. The ordination took place before his death. 
This death fixes the point from which the divine 
writers usually estimate the knowledge of God, for 
Cod is seldom alluded to by new testament writers 
except in his relation to the work of salvation. 
They seldom refer to divine knowledge as an ab- 


Election.. 


263 


stract idea; only in liis relation to one or the other 
of the covenants do they write of him. Therefore 
in general God’s foreknowledge takes the same 
course in Scripture that fore- ordination does. With 
these writers Christianity is the cosmos; the Judaic 
economy is the foundation of the cosmos. So in the 
case of the sin against the Holy Ghost the com- 
mon version makes forgiveness possible “neither in 
this world nor that which is to come.” But it is ev- 
ident that Jesus recognized himself under the first 
covenant, or age, “made under the law,” when he 
uttered that statement, and meant only that no pro- 
vision was made under the law for the sin against 
the Holy Ghost, neither will there be in the second 
covenant, or aion. The new version has placed 
“ age ” instead of “world ” in the margin. 

The coming and crucifixion of Jesus was the 
event of heaven and earth. Every thing on earth 
depended on it, and God himself was absorbed in 
the interest. It was the “ fullness of times.” After 
ages were called “the last days.” Time was divid- 
ed by it; heaven and hell are separated by it, and it 
has even come to be the point from which the divine 
knowledge is calculated. Hence we read at Ro- 
mans viii. 29: “ For whom he did foreknow, he also 
did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his 
Son.” Here the “foreknowledge” and “calling” 
and “predestination ’’all have respect to the “Son.” 
“Whom” relates to Israel; the foreknowledge is 
therefore of Israel. The only thing the law did not 
provide for Israel under the first covenant was con- 
formity to the spirit of Jesus Christ. They lacked 


264 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


the spirit. This being known to God before Christ 
came was the predestinated privilege of every believ- 
ing Israelite who died before this conforming process 
was completed. The call and predestination went 
still further; it embraced every Israelite who might 
be living after the kingdom of heaven appeared on 
earth; for Israel as a nation was elected, and con- 
sequently was predestinated to enjoy the privileges 
of this divine conformation, as we read in Romans 
ix. This election was in many instances broken off 
by individual unbelief, and for this cause many failed 
to enjoy a privilege which was guaranteed to the na- 
tion in the blood of Jesus and by the oath of the Al- 
mighty. See Romans ix. 18-20. They w r ere pre- 
destinated to the privilege. So Jesus commanded 
his disciples to coniine their first ministry to the 
Jews, that they, having been elected, might have 
the privilege of enjoying the first-fruits of the Spir- 
it; and Paul, at Romans viii. 22, declares that they 
did enjoy the “first-fruits.” 

Ephesians i. 4 presents a difficult aspect of the 
doctrine. This address is undeniably to Gentiles, 
lie says: “According as he hath chosen us in him 
before the foundation of the world, that we should 
be holy and without blame before him in love: hav- 
ing predestinated us unto the adoption of children 
by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good 
pleasure of his will.” Here the election and predes- 
tination includes persons who were not of the elect- 
ed nationality of Israel. But when we study Paul 
a little more closely the difficulty will vanish. Paul 
thoroughly understood the system of salvation — the 


Election. 


265 


covenants and testaments, lie knew that while the 
first covenant was secular, the second was to be non- 
worldly; that the first was only designed to assist in 
developing the second: that the promise of the sec- 
ond, so often repeated in connection with the events 
of the first, was sometimes and generally clouded by 
the first; but, nevertheless, he could see that the 
promise of salvation which was laid down among 
the pillars of the foundation system or cosmos was 
to be brought out in bold reality with the heirs of 
Abraham by faith. Hence he declares in Romans 
ix. 6-8: “ Not as though the word of God hath taken 
none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are 
of Israel : neither, because they are the seed of Abra- 
ham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy 
seed be called. That is, They which are the children 
of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but 
the children of the promise are counted for the seed.’’ 
Those Christian Ephesians were children by faith — 
adopted into the covenant by the act of the Holy 
Ghost, made sons, and were from the foundation of 
the covenant embraced in the spiritual promise. 
The condition of this spiritual election is faith in 
Christ. Also in Romans ii. 28, 29, it is said: “lie is 
not a Jew which is one outwardly ; neither is that 
circumcision which is outward in the flesh: but he 
is a Jew which is one inwardly ; and circumcision is 
that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter.” 

Salvation was promised to the whole world; the 
promise was made early; the fulfillment came late. 
This promise contained a covenant feature; but since 
mutuality is the element of a covenant, the party 


266 


Behold the Lamb of G-od! 


of the flesh i 3 engaged to do something; that some- 
thing is to believe in Jesus Christ; and this is the 
condition of spiritual election. This second cove- 
nant was promised to Gentiles as well as Jews. 
Hence Paul could truthfully say to the Ephesians, 
“According as he hath chosen us [Jew or Gentile] 
in him [in Christ] before the foundation of the 
world,” or before the second covenant was dedicat- 
ed — for this is really what the phrase “foundation 
of the world” usually means — God had chosen them, 
as he had the whole race. The second covenant is 
just that thing; it is God offering salvation to all. 
You will observe that according to this quotation 
God has only chosen them to a privilege; they have 
been brought from a position of impossibility to one 
of possibility; they have been predestinated in the 
covenant of Christ to this exalted privilege.' How 
will they accept it? Many of the Jews, although 
elected and predestinated under a double guarantee 
of two covenants, failed to accept the final blessing, 
and lost the benefit of the election and predestination. 
These Ephesians had accepted the privilege to which 
the world was elected under the second covenant. 

But in Homans viii. 30 it is declared that those 
who were “predestinated” were “called,” “justi- 
fied,” and “ glorified. ” Paul does not reason in this 
discourse with the perspicuity of a scientist; he is 
rushing along on the tide of inspiration. Thoughts 
crowded him, and he only touches them at times, 
while he pursues the main line of discussion. These 
Homans were Roman Jews, and they were well in- 
formed in the Jewish religion ; hence Paul is con- 


Election. 


267 


stantly referring to the “ Jews,” to “Abraham,” to 
“law,” to “circumcision,” to “ election,” and every 
subject that would interest a Jew. He has shown 
the wickedness of the Gentiles, and now he exposes 
the sinfulness of the Jews. The Gentiles, having 
been cut off from natural religion, would possibly 
now fly to Judaism, so the apostle would head off 
such vain flight by showing its utter insufficiency ; 
and that brings him by a logical connection to show 
that while the Gentiles had nothing to rely on, the 
Jewish religion, if rightly studied, would lead direct- 
ly into the Christian Church; for; although the law 
was bondage, yet the true liberty was found in “ the 
law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, the end of 
the law,” or the object of the Jewish economy. To 
this point Paul arrived, after he had reviewed 
briefly all religions, and had dwelt at some length 
in his review of the Jewish theory. He proves that 
human life was but a continuous spiritual death, 
from Adam to Moses, and that the influx of light 
by means of the commandments given at Sinai had 
the effect to intensify that death by making the liv- 
ing man more conscious of his moral deformity and 
helplessness under the law, and brings his reader 
up through the successive lights of the first cove- 
nant till the soul’s eye catches the light of a better 
hope in the crucified One of Calvary. Now the 
Spirit comes, and with it comes a power sufficient 
to overcome sin that dwells in the flesh, the sin that 
made life so miserable under the first covenant. 
“For what the law could not do, in that it was 
weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son 


268 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, con- 
demned [or, rather, overpowered] sin in the flesh.” 
It is a plea for the intense spirituality of the second 
covenant as compared with the outward religion of 
the first; and, while arguing the holy estate of the 
spirit of life in the Christian, he comes to the shaded 
side of this delightful life — the sufferings of God’s 
people — and this thought carries him hurriedly over 
the past ages, and couples the sufferings and hopes 
of all ages with his own exalted day. “For the 
earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the 
manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature 
was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by 
reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope ; 
because the creature itself also shall be delivered 
from the bondage of corruption into the glorious 
liberty of the children of God. For we know that 
the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain 
together until now.” The phrase “until now” in- 
dicates a period of relief; the phrase “ whole crea- 
tion means the race of man in all past ages; “the 
creature was made subject to vanity ” — the darkness 
of sin and spiritual death fell on the whole race; 
“for we know that the whole creation,” or race of 
man, “ groaneth and travaileth in pain together until 
now,” not willingly, by the masses, but by reason of 
Adam’s sin. There had never been a real redemp- 
tion until now, and therefore whatever of light the 
race may have enjoyed previously could do no more 
than produce a hope of better things, and they were 
left to groan in the pains of sin. The Church was 
in travail till Jesus was brought forth ; pain and un- 


Election. 


269 


certainty clouded the skies, but he is now born from 
the dead, and the light has come. Jesus saves — 
that is the light; he begins it in us by the imparta- 
tion of spiritual life to the spirit. “We are now 
begotten,” as Peter says, “to a lively hope/’ a hope 
that is not merely a clouded expectation, as was the 
hope of the “creature” in verse 19, who lived un- 
der the first covenant. Ours is a hope which, while 
it expects still greater things, does now actually see 
the truth of the final hope. We have witnessed 
a resurrection within ourselves, and therefore can 
readily believe in a final resurrection. True, we 
also groan within ourselves, although the Spirit of 
God is in us ; for as yet we are but mortal, and the 
infirmities of mortality burden us as they did the 
“ creatures” of the past covenant, and we now, like 
the holy dead of Israel under the first covenant, are 
waiting for the adoption of the body — the final res- 
urrection, of which we have a witness in our moral 
resurrection. When that is accomplished, then re- 
demption will have fulfilled every promise. So the 
apostle is arguing the connection between the two 
covenants — the point in human experience wdiere 
the two covenants blend. We — the holy dead of 
the first covenant and the holy living of the present 
covenant — are one in the enjoyment of the spirit of 
the new covenant, and one in the hope of a final 
resurrection. 

But what became of the saints — the “ called,” who 
died before Christ came, and who had the “earnest 
expectation,” who groaned and “were all their life- 
time in bondage to fear? ” These are they who are 


270 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


habitually called “saints,” or holy. Now the read- 
er of the apostle might infer that as such great 
grace as is termed “first-fruits of the Spirit” had 
come only to the present age, the saints of the for- 
mer age were all deprived of this glory. So he at 
once begins what is a good answer to such doubt: 
“And we know that all things work together for 
good to them that love God, to them who are the 
called according to his purpose.” The holy of all 
ages before Christ were the “ called.” See Hebrews 
ix. 15. It was God’s “ purpose ” that they should re- 
ceive the Spirit when the time of the Spirit baptism 
came, “ for whom he did foreknow ” — know as holy 
in the law sense before Christ came — “he also did 
predestinate to be conformed to the image of his 
Son,” that he might be “ the first-born among many 
brethren.” “Moreover whom he did predestinate, 
them he also called.” In other words, the same whom 
he predestinated are they whom he had called by 
the demands of the law and the prophets. These 
he justified, as that was the best the system provid- 
ed, and whom he justified he also glorified. But 
the glorification did not occur till the redemption 
had been wrought in the blood of Christ — till Christ 
himself was glorified, as stated in John vii. 38, 39. 
Then it was that the Holy Spirit breathed on them, 
as in Ezekiel’s vision of the valley of dry bones. 
They became living men. Ezekiel locates this 
scene in the reign of David, and makes it future to 
his day. But David lived before the prophet ; there- 
fore he refers to the spiritual David — the Lord Jesus 
Christ. 


Election. 


271 


Because there was no full and final salvation un- 
der the Judaic economy, those who obeyed and died 
in that obedience were entitled to the best privileges 
of the covenant under which they were called, which 
best privilege was “election.” They were elected 
when their probation ended to be conformed to the 
image of God’s Son, which would take place under 
the second covenant. There was therefore a bona 
fide election under that covenant. It depended on 
faith in God, which faith prompted obedience to 
law. 

So we find four classes of election in the Bible : 
First, Abel, Noah, and Abraham. These elections 
depended on the character of the persons elected, 
and the election could at any time be forfeited by a 
default on the part of the persons elected. They 
were elected only to certain legal or civil distinc- 
tions. Secondly, Ishmael, Isaac, Esau, and Jacob. 
These elections were in pursuance of a divine pur- 
pose — a purpose made known in a promise to Abra- 
ham. These were likewise political preferments, 
but the volition of the subject was not considered. 
Thirdly, The holy dead of the first covenant were 
elected to be conformed to Christ’s Spirit. Fourth- 
ly, The Christian election. This latter is of the 
Abrahamic type. These depend on conditions — 
faith in Jesus — and may be forfeited, as Israel lost 
his election by a want of faith. 

The only case of election to destruction was that 
of Pharaoh. This case, however, is not called elec- 
tion in the Scriptures. That is a name given by theo- 
logians to an act of God which does not necessarily 


272 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


mean election. It is a very improper name, for the 
case has none of the elements of spiritual election. 
The Bible describes the case thus: “Even for this 
same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might 
show my power in thee, and that my name might 
be declared throughout all the earth.” God knew 
Pharaoh to be a stubborn, unyielding man, devoted 
to the mythical gods of his nation, and that won- 
derful displays of divine power would be needful to 
overcome such a man. He therefore raised him up 
to the Egyptian throne at the right time, at the 
time when in the divine purpose Israel should be 
relieved from bondage. So now when Israel comes 
forth it will be from the thunders and storms of a 
religious revolution. lie shall witness the slaughter 
of heathen gods, and the majesty of Jehovah should 
be witnessed and recorded for the whole earth to see 
and glorify. God often uses wicked men without 
interference with their volitions to show to the 
world the beauty and truth of the Christian relig- 
ion. The raising up of Pharaoh was like that of 
Esau and Jacob — purely political. 

A oltaire was raised up to great literary eminence 
at a time when genuine godliness was almost ex- 
tinct. His vaunting and audacious assaults on 
Christianity brought the few godly men and women 
of his day to their knees in spiritual agony. Of this 
Church travail Wesley was born, and the revival set 
in motion by him not only checked the tide of skep- 
ticism, but pushed all the Churches forward to a 
state of apostolic zeal and holiness. So dead was 
Christianity at the date of Voltaire’s writing that 


Election. 


273 


lie prophesied that in one hundred years there 
would not be a Bible found in civilized nations. In 
just one hundred years the very house in which the 
skeptic penned his evil prophecy was bought by the 
British Bible Society for a Bible house. 

Mr. Ingersoll is a child of Providence exactly as 
Pharaoh was. Ilis beautiful rhetoric and withering 
sarcasm gave a quickened impulse to the Church, 
and at once the Moodys and Joneses go thundering 
through the continent like the very voice of God 
himself. All Christendom is roused from lethargy; 
a new life fills the pulpit; the pew is vitalized; the 
country is shaken by a moral earthquake. 

18 


CHAPTER XXXIII. 


Mary. 

I THINK Mariolatry is a great sin. But Mary 
must not be lost sight of in our recoil from 
idolatry perpetrated in her name. She was truly 
great, and worthy a place in affectionate memory. 
She was the mother of the world’s Redeemer; but 
it is not that fact alone which enshrines her in 
memory. The circumstances which led to that dis- 
tinction are to be considered. God had reasons for 
selecting this fair daughter of David. God never 
acts without a reason. When he made choice of 
, Abraham to head the tribes of the Lord he gave 
as a reason that the patriarch was a suitable man. 
lie found in him those qualities of heart and head 
that made him fit to head a nation. “ I know him, 
that he will command his children and his house- 
hold after him.” God was not committing his in- 
terest to a reckless man, an unfaithful steward. 
Abraham’s children were to be examples of piety 
and the custodians of a revelation, and it was there- 
fore important that they should be worthy, and this 
made culture of great importance. Of his children 
Christ was to be born ; and should he be born of 
unworthy parentage? No. Mary was brought up 
under the teaching and example of Abraham, and 
was in all respects worthy of her distinguished pro- 
( 274 ) 


Mary. 


genitor. But little is written of this daughter of 
Israel. We have only glimpses of her. Matthew 
devotes two verses to her; Mark and John do little 
more than mention the name. Luke tells us she 
was a virgin espoused to Joseph, who was of the 
house of David, and that they lived at Nazareth. 
This evangelist gives the narrative of the holy con- 
ception, and informs us of the character and line- 
age of Mary; but her character is outlined in a few 
words: “Thou that art highly favored, the Lord is 
with thee; ” “ thou hast found favor with God.” The 
persons who reared, this damsel had neglected no 
duty, and she had received instruction with a right 
disposition. She had profited by her culture. No 
doubt it was her purity of life and guileless spirit 
which caused her election to this high distinction. 
Very soon after the angel had assured her that the 
Messiah should be her son, and that her Cousin 
Elizabeth was also honored, she visited that cousin 
to commune with her of these thrilling matters, be- 
cause from what the angel had told her she would 
find a sympathizing friend in Elizabeth. On the 
occasion of this visit, as Mary entered the house 
and addressed her cousin, the unborn John “leaped ” 
when Mary spoke. Elizabeth was immediately 
“filled with the Holy Ghost,” and began to proph- 
esy. These holy women were filled with the spirit 
in the prophetic sense, and surely the spirit of proph- 
ecy never had greater occasion to fill the mind than 
when the unborn Messiah and the herald of his 
kingdom met in the “hill country” of Judea. So 
great was the excitement occasioned by these cele- 


276 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


brated miracles that Mary hasted from her home to 
the house of her venerable cousin to confer about 
the purpose and the grace of God. The occasion 
was one of joy and even ecstasy. But let us not 
overdraw the picture, and make improper deduc- 
tions. The angel had informed Mary that her soil 
should be a King, and that the kingdom should be 
durable. Now, if she did not understand the real 
nature of that kingdom, here was yet abundant occa- 
sion for excitement and joy. A poor girl, suddenly 
exalted to the honor of being the mother of a King, 
and that too by divine announcement, with expres- 
sions of high favor with God! And Elizabeth too 
had seen an angel, had been assured of a great dis- 
tinction, had been accepted signally of God, and 
was now blessed with the prophetic spirit. But 
nothing is said that will justify the belief that they 
enjoyed the spirit in the Kew Testament sense. 
Mary’s exulting language does not indicate the joy 
of a Kew Testament praise: “For he hath regarded 
the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from 
henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.” 
This was rather prophecy than praise. If it were 
personal praise, and not prophecy, it evinces a mo- 
tive too low for genuine Christian exultation, “for, 
behold, from henceforth all generations shall call 
me blessed .” It is the office of a pure Christian joy 
to lose sight of self and magnify Christ. Suppose 
a converted Christian should be heard to exult in 
such language as this, “Behold, all generations 
shall call me great,” for that seems to be the sense 
of the word “ blessed.” It would not agree with 


Mary . 


277 


the humility such are supposed to have. But Mary 
was prophesying of Christ, whose greatness would 
till the eyes of future generations, and she would be 
honored for his sake. While Mary was of the very 
best type of piety and purity of her dispensation, 
she was not yet a subject of the spiritual kingdom 
proper; but she was a beautiful character. 

Mary was also a child of sorrow. None are so 
good that sorrow will not shade them, nor can we 
forecast the course of our trials. That which was 
to Mary the crown of glory and rejoicing soon be- 
came her sorrow and cloud. When the angel had 
informed her of the great distinction she ran with 
joy to her fond husband, whom she had married but 
a few days before, and told him the wonderful news. 
Of course her young and trusting heart expected 
him to unite with her in gratitude to God. But 
such was not the case. A cloud passed over Jo- 
seph’s face. Suspicions and jealousy darkened on 
his brow. He suspected infidelity, and feared the 
vision of the angel was a ruse to deceive him. He 
was wounded, yet he loved Mary. He looked on 
her now pale, sweet face, and wept. Betrayed, but 
still adoring, he would act justly. For her sake 
he would not make the matter public, but would 
quietly leave her and suffer all alone. He would 
not court the sympathy of friends even at the cost 
of the young wife’s exposure, but would carry 
his trouble in his own manly heart. Only Mary 
should know that he was no longer her husband; 
he “ would put her aw T ay privily.” But what must 
have been the agony of that innocent maiden? Of 


278 


Behold the Laynb of God ! 


her purity she could affirm even to an angel, for she 
had pleaded that very difficulty when the angel told 
her of God’s intention. She was still a virgin, in- 
nocent and pure as the unsoiled dew-drops, yet she 
is discarded by her husband under the dreadful sus- 
picion of infidelity. If indeed Joseph had told her 
of his fears, terrible and tearful must have been the 
hours of her grief. So Jesus was a man of sorrows 
from his conception to his death. Well might he 
sympathize with suffering and tempted man. But 
God will not leave his suffering children to consum- 
ing sorrow. He sent his angel to Joseph and re- 
moved his fears, restored his confidence, and all is 
well again. 


CHAPTER XXXIV. 


Infant Baptism. 

I T is objected that the theory of this book “is 
against the argument for infant baptism as 
drawn from circumcision.” This objection proceeds 
upon the ground that the position of this book is 
identical with that of Baptists — namely, that a new 
Church was set up in Jesus Christ at his resurrec- 
tion. I have already noticed this error, but it may 
be profitable to notice it still further. There seems 
to be two errors at this point. First, the error of 
Baptists. I quote from Elder J. R. Graves, in the 
Graves-Ditzler debate, held at Carrollton in 1876, 
page 196 : 

The covenant of redemption was never made, with mortal, sin- 
ful flesh, and the covenant with Noah, or the covenants with 
Abraham — whether considered as two or one — or the covenant 
at Mount Sinai, never called a Christian Church into existence, 
and therefore could in no sense warrant infant baptism.” 

This is a clear and fair statement of the views 
held by Baptists and Campbellites. The first part 
of this statement is intensely Calvinistic. “ The 
covenant of redemption was never made with mor- 
tal, sinful man.” This means that it was not made 
with man at all. The idea is that it was wrought 
out perfectly and became a finished system of salva- 
tion in God’s eternal councils before the earth was 

, (279) 


280 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


made, and that man was made under its provisions 
and disposed of fully and in detail by election and 
predestination in the Calvinistic sense. In such 
case there is of course no need of covenants with 
man. Baptists, I imagine, would never have been 
Calvinistic at this point if their prosecution of in- 
fant baptism had not demanded it. How can Camp- 
bellites swallow it, they professing not to believe in 
Calvinism? 

The Church logically inheres in the idea of re- 
demption, and a covenant with man containing no 
more than a mere promise of redemption would nat- 
urally carry with it the idea of a Church in some 
form suitable to the condition of redemption. Be- 
lievers would cluster around the promise and would 
organize on the promise, and that organization, 
however loose and imperfect, w T ould be the Church; 
and such existence, however bare, would carry with 
it the rights of membership, and this would or 
would not include infants, according as the Church 
might be instructed. 

Children were members of the Jewish economy. 
Baptists see this plainly enough, and Elder Graves 
makes himself and his Church consistent by deny- 
ing the existence of any covenant of redemption at 
all with “mortal, sinful man,” and consequently, as 
he thinks, gets rid of a Church altogether till re- 
demption is made “ manifest ” in Jesus Christ after 
his resurrection. But this is sophistical. The “ man- 
ifestation” of Christ did nothing that was not al- 
ready done, so far as redemption is concerned, if 
Calvinism is true. If a Church is founded in re- 


Infant Baptism. 


£81 


demption, and redemption has always existed be- 
cause it was finished in the councils of God before 
the earth was, then the Church bears the same rela- 
tion to eternity and to God. Of course, if this rea- 
soning be good, the’ Church existed as certainly in 
Adam’s, Xoali’s, Abraham’s, and Moses’s days as in 
ours. If so, then we inquire who were its members? 
Surely we will find them in Israel, if anywhere, for 
Israel was not only embraced in the covenant of re- 
demption supposed to have been made with Jesus 
Christ before the earth was, but was incorporated in 
all the minor covenants as well. Among others, we 
find children of eight days formally brought into 
those covenant relations by circumcision. Paul, 
speaking of the Mosaic period, refers to “the 
Church in the wilderness.” Our Baptist brethren 
are surely in the toils of coven an tal entanglements. 

The other error is that of Methodists. I will 
quote from Dr. Miller on “ Infant Baptism.” lie 
says at page 104: 

Our first work will be to show that the Church of God did 
then [in the days of Abraham] exist as really and truly as it now 
exists. Not that there was a fleshly institution, in which neither 
faith nor piety were contemplated [Campbell’s debate with Rice, 
page 309], but that a Church having every essential fact and feat- 
ure that the Church of Christ now possesses did then exist. 

Dr. Miller’s position is a rebound from the oppo- 
site extreme as held by Campbellites and Baptists. 
While they hold that there was no Church, and con- 
sequently no infant membership, -Dr. Miller holds 
that the Church of that day had “every essential 
fact and feature of the Church of Christ” of this 
day. Dr. Miller did not see how he could -provide 


282 


Behold the Lamb of God ! 


for infant baptism if he claimed less than he here 
claims. But suppose he had admitted that the 
Church was not perfect in that day, still he could 
have shown that in the Church, then imperfect as 
it was, children were admitted to membership, and 
that this, so far from being one of the evidences of 
its imperfection, was one of its most significant ap- 
proaches to perfection. Little children best of all 
symbolized the purity of the Church of the new 
testament; hence the nation was brought into cov- 
enant relation by circumcision while in its infancy. 
The male children, however, were alone selected for 
this purpose, and herein is the symbolic feature of 
the ordinance. Circumcision, as Dr. Miller correct- 
ly holds, was twofold in its significance. First, it 
was a token of the covenant; it was a sign of the 
righteousness recognized by the then existing cove- 
nant. But it was also symbolic; it symbolized the 
coming “ seed ” — a Son — through whom all nations 
would be blest. Therefore only a male child could 
symbolize the coming Son of God. This showed 
the imperfection of the system as it then existed, 
and it pointed to a period of perfection to be real- 
ized in the future. And although only males were 
circumcised under that imperfect state of the Church, 
the fact remains that children — very young infants 
— were in it by express ordinance of God. This 
fiict is clear: infancy as such was not a bar to 
Church-membership then. It is true that the son 
only was circumcised, but the female was indirectly 
circumcised; she came into the Church by coverture 
of the right of circumcision, just as Christians to- 


Infant Baptism. 


283 


day sustain the relation of sonship to God by cover 
or coverture of the Son of God. 

The doctrine of coverture abounds in the Bible. 
Females sustained the relation of coverture to the 
Church of Israel. The son and daughter were both 
born to the rights of the covenants, but the ceremo- 
ny of circumcision was required as a condition prec- 
edent to the enjoyment of those rights; and while 
the ceremony of the son’s initiation was typical, the 
female was subrogated to all of its legal blessings by 
coverture under the rights of the male. That cir- 
cumcised son became the father of the uncircumcised 
female infant, and under coverture of the father’s 
rights the daughter was in the Church. While 
both were in the Church in virtue of circumcision, 
the male child symbolized the Son of God, or the 
“seed,” while the female symbolized the relation of 
coverture which we all at this day, male and female, 
sustain to God through our Lord Jesus Christ, in 
the great atonement made in his flesh. 

Now while Dr. Miller would lose nothing as to 
infant baptism by admitting an imperfect state of 
the Church under the first testament, he would avoid 
the necessity of hedging against his own position, as 
he does at page 93 of “ Infant Baptism : ’ 

T will simply say that the expression, “I will make a new cov- 
enant,” in Hebrews viii. 8, does not mean to make new, de novo , 
or to originate. It simply means to complete. 

Dr. Miller repeatedly calls this Abrahamic cove- 
nant the constitution of the Church of God. He 
gives it the attributes of Church perfection. He 
has declared that it had every essential “fact and 


284 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


feature” that the Church of Christ now possesses. 
Now, after claiming all this, where is any place to 
he found in his theory for a new covenant, in any 
form, either de novo or in the sense of completion ? 
What did it need to complete it if it had every 
1 fact and feature” of the Church of Christ of this 
day? When he admits that some things pertain- 
ing to the Church were completed in this new cov- 
nant he admits imperfection in. the former. What 
is that imperfection? Whatever it is, it is the un- 
finished or incomplete ideas of the old covenant. 
Something was done when Christ came that gave a 
finish to the Church, and in that particular, what- 
ever it is, the Church of the first covenant was de- 
fective. It was this “ fact” or “.feature ” that the 
Church did not possess in that early period of its 
existence. Dr. Miller’s own position forces him to 
this conclusion. This much, then, he should have 
admitted, and in doing so would not have injured 
his argument in favor of infant baptism, but it 
would have enabled him to turn the position of his 
opposers against themselves; for these opponents, 
seeing that the Church of the new testament is 
more spiritual * than any thing appearing under 
the old, have taken the divine act which spiritual- 
ized the Church of the first covenant to be the in- 
stitution of a new Church; and Dr. Miller, having 
denied the existence of a new Church and failing 
to note the fact that the old Church had been re- 
newed by the influx of the baptism of the Holy 
Ghost, was compelled either to admit the Baptist 
and Campbellite idea of a new Church or assume 


Infant Baptism. 


235 


that the “Church had always possessed every fact 
and feature of the Church of Christ” of to-day. 

The Church has always existed, but it takes its 
nature and the character of its formula from the 
covenants and testaments under which it exists. In 
the age when the atonement was only a matter of 
promise — namely, from Adam to Abraham — its doc- 
trine and formula were exceedingly simple; from 
Moses to Christ these were more complex because 
of the added law. After Christ had finished the 
work of the atonement life was infused into the 
Church, spirituality became the ruling element, and 
the formula was changed to suit the spiritual status 
of the Church. 

Dr. Miller has much to say about the Abrahamic 
covenant being the constitution of the Church of 
God. Certainly this term is not well chosen. If it 
be a constitution, it cannot be, as Dr. Miller claims, 
a changeless and eternal one, for about the first 
thing Dr. Miller does is to change its terms from 
circumcision to baptism. He certainly has the 
right to claim baptism as the token which succeeds 
the token of circumcision, but this very succession 
proves him wrong when he assumes the Abrahamic 
covenant to be the unchangeable constitution of 
God’s Church. The truth is, Dr. Miller has failed to 
comprehend the Abrahamic covenant. It is a dual 
covenant, and is of promise only. Nothing was 
bestowed under it except by promise. Every thing 
was future to Abraham. The promise was twofold 
— one spiritual, the other secular. The secular was 
to be fulfilled first, the spiritual last, and at a very 


286 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


distant day. The secular related to Abraham’s pos- 
terity in his first two sons, Ishmael and Isaac, and 
to the country they should inhabit by their poster- 
ity; the spiritual related to the coming of Christ 
and the spiritual blessings he should bring on the 
race of man. The spiritual promise contained in 
the Abrahamic covenant might be called constitu- 
tional with some propriety, but when that term is 
made to cover the whole Abrahamic covenant con- 
fusion follows that cannot be clarified by all the arts 
of logic. It was this spiritual promise that brought 
about the new covenant. As a promise made to 
Abraham it was old, but as a thing realized, a pronu 
ise fulfilled in the death and resurrection of Jesus 
Christ, it was new, and had its first existence save 
in promise only in the days of the Apostle Paul, who 
wrote of it to his Hebrew brethren. The covenant 
was new, the blessing was new; the Church was 
old, but was now newly blest in the vital power of 
a spirituality hitherto unknown in her history. 

Dr. Graves denies that u any covenant of redemp- 
tion was ever made with mortal, sinful man.” He 
is wrong. Jeremiah and Paul declare that the new 
covenant — the one in which God writes his law in 
the heart — was made with the house of .Israel and 
Judah. They were “mortal and sinful.” 

To deny that a Church existed before the advent 
of Christ is to deny a plain statement of facts made 
in the Scriptures. Even Baptists do not deny it, 
but they negative their admission by affirming that 
it is not a Christian Church. It is, they say, a “ Jew- 
ish Church.” But Baptists will not deny that the 


Infant Baptism. 


287 


Jewish Church was at that time the Church of God. 
God was its Head and King; so is he now the Head 
and King of the Church in Christ Jesus. Baptists 
deny that it was the Christian Church because 
Christ had not then come. But Christ had been 
promised, and it was around this promise that the or- 
ganization clustered; and because Christ was as yet 
only a promise the Church was religio-economic 
suitably to the imperfect state of Christianity as it 
then existed. To deny that God had a Church in 
those days is not only to deny plain and unequivo- 
cal statements of the Bible, but it makes a complete 
religious blank of two-thirds of the world’s history. 

But on the other hand the Methodist divines 
claim too much for the Church of that day. We go 
to the opposite extreme, as has been shown by quo- 
tations from Dr. Miller. We claim a perfection for 
the Church which it did not possess. Baptists make 
little or no effort to explain the reasons for the de- 
ficiency of the Church, as they hold; they are con- 
tent for the most part to rest the case on a simple 
denial, and rely on antagonizing the arguments 
which pedobaptists urge in favor of Church per- 
fection before Christ. The simplest glance at the 
old Scriptures convinces any one that some sort of 
a Church did exist before Christ, and it equally con- 
vinces that there was much imperfection in it. Pe- 
dobaptists assume that the imperfection was not in 
the matter of laws or graces of the Church, but that 
it consists alone in disobedience to the demands of 
the Church ; that any failure of grace was owing al- 
together to backsliding, as is now often the case 


288 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


since Jesus lias come. I will readily concede that 
men and women did then backslide just as they 
often do now, but their backsliding only proves that 
they fell from what grace they had; however, it by 
no means establishes the degree of that grace. A 
heathen may backslide from the grace of the light 
he has, but that does not prove that he has the light 
and grace of the gospel. The fact that any sort of 
a Church existed proves that they had a measure of 
grace. But what was the grace of the first cove- 
nant and the Church of that covenant? That is 
the question; and I believe that it has never been 
satisfactorily answered. 

Baptists deny a Christian Church before Christ in 
order to avoid the argument of pedobaptists for in- 
fant baptism; but they lose the force of that avoid- 
ance when they admit that the Jewish Church was 
a type of the Christian Church, for to the extent 
that it was typical it was to that extent a part of 
the Christian system — the typical part of it. It is 
admitted that male infants were members of this 
typical Church; if so, these male infants were a part 
of the type. What did they typify? As before 
stated, they typified the Son of God, or “Seed” 
of promise; but they further typified that infants 
should be in the antitype— the so-called Christian 
Church. And the reason that none but male in- 
fants were recognized in the type is that none but 
males were ever considered as representative of the 
race. Adam represented the race; Jesus represent- 
ed the race; and so male children represented Christ 
and his relation to the race of infancy. These male 


Infant Baptism. 


289 


children were brought into the typical Church by 
circumcision. But when the typical Church ceased 
the ceremonies of the type would also naturally 
cease. So, when this type ceased, circumcision, one 
of its chief ceremonies, likewise ceased. The anti- 
type, the Christian Church as it is to-day, now 
comes in, and of course children come in with it. 
IIow are they brought in? Into the invisible Church 
they are brought by the redemption in Jesus Christ; 
into the visible Church by the only door we have 
heard of — baptism. Whether baptism comes in 
lieu of circumcision by express command or not is 
entirely immaterial. Circumcision left us when the 
type left, and we find ourselves standing in the 
midst of the glory of the antitype, with baptism as 
a door into the very thing that the Jewish Church 
with infantile circumcision typified. 

If God did not bring. this state of things to pass, 
who did? and of what authority is baptism? Jesus 
and the apostles were at the head of the antitypical 
Church, and they did leave circumcision off, and 
they did bring baptism in. So by the act of God, 
if not by command, baptism takes the very place in 
the antitype that circumcision took in the type, and 
the subjects of the ceremony are the same now as 
formerly, but without limitation of age or sex, such 
limits being peculiar only to the type. 

19 


CHAPTER XXXV. 


A Summary View. 

1. The central thought of this book is that the 
atonement of Christ is in his actual death and res- 
urrection; that any scheme which makes atonement 
full and effective before the actual death and resur- 
rection is Calvinistic, and not Arminian, nor is it 
supported by the word of God, but is expressly op- 
posed by Hebrews ix. 15-18, 20, where the sins of 
the first testament were taken away by means of 
the death which occurred under the second testa- 
ment; and that no testament is of force without the 
death of the testator. Jesus had not died while the 
first testament was in force; and therefore his tes- 
tament, which is the new one, was not in force till 
he died. The only view that can be strongly op- 
posed to this is the Calvinistic atonement — that is, 
God knew Jesus had been born and died when as a 
human fact he had done neither. As man*is hu- 
man, the Bible has kindly treated him as such, and 
requires him to take a human view of facts. Jesus 
had not died nor risen till those events occurred in 
the year one, and therefore his testament was not 
in force till that year. 

2. The appointed time of God for the appearance 
of Jesus was several thousand years future from 
Adam’s fall ; therefore it was natural and right that 

(290) 


A Summary View. 


291 


something should be done to meet the emergency 
of the case. So a provisional government and plan 
of salvation was arranged by the Father. This, 
so far as its religious aspect was concerned, was a 
training-school to bring the world up to the idea of 
Christ. Paul aptly describes the legal part of this 
preparatory system as a school-master to bring us 
unto Christ. In this system we find God acting as 
the actual King of nations, dealing with man as a 
civil Ruler, under which some apparently hard and 
harsh proceedings are brought to view, but the harsh- 
ness is found to he only such as is essential to the 
government of rude and barbarous peoples. The 
reduction of Canaan and destruction of whole tribes 
are seen to be essential to the planting and develop- 
ment of the nation of Israel. The great flood of 
Noah was in the interest of good government and 
a higher civilization, without any reference to the 
spiritual. condition of the soul after death; that, in- 
stead of assigning those millions of ignorant creat- 
ures to hell’s tortures, they are kept in hades, subject 
to the flnal instruction of Christ under the developed 
grace of the coming kingdom of heaven — a post- 
mortem privilege confined to ante- Christian peoples. 

3. The kingdom of heaven is by all admitted to 
be a spiritual estate in this life, and Jesus gave us 
the plainest possible inferential statement that John 
the Baptist was not in that state while he lived, for 
“ the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than 
he; ” while he also declared just as distinctly that 
John was greater than Abel, Enoch, Abraham, or 
Elijah — two of whom were translated. 


292 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


4. Those evangelical scriptures so confidently re- 
lied on to prove the fullness of the grace of the old 
testament are twofold in meaning. First, they de- 
scribe the best joy and the best salvation the current 
testament provided. Secondly, they are frequently 
prophetic, and refer to the divine developments of 
the new testament. Metaphor, symbol, and proph- 
ecy covered every thing in the line of Israel. That 
which was real was always connected with the fut- 
ure, either as symbol, metaphor, or prophecy. If 
Moses led Israel to the border, so the law system 
was to lead Israel to the border of the spiritual king- 
dom. If Joshua opened the river and led Israel 
into the promised inheritance, so the later Joshua 
(Jesus) was to lead the believing Israelites into the 
deferred spiritual promise. If the law and prophets 
were until John, so these w T ould be fulfilled in Him 
who is the fullness of the Godhead, by fixing heav- 
enly dispositions in the heart as well as an enlight- 
ened view of God and duty in the intellect; the law 
would be placed in the mind and heart, dispositions 
and tastes would be made to accord with the de- 
mands of law by an operation of the Spirit of God. 

5. The foreknowledge of God in Scripture is not 
an abstract idea, but is considered in its concrete re- 
lation to the coming of Jesus Christ. God knew 
before Christ came those who, having been called, 
obeyed and died in obedience — such, for instance, as 
Abraham, who promptly obeyed every call of God, 
and died in that obedience. This patriarch was 
known of God before Christ came to be obedient 
and faithful to every duty imposed on him, and 


A Saw wary Vino . 


293 


therefore he was elected to the privilege of salva- 
tion, or to the rights and privileges of the kingdom 
of heaven, dependent, after the patriarch died, on 
one condition alone — viz., Christ’s personal faithful-' 
ness. If that contingency had not been in the way, 
there would never have been a law system and a 
training school for the world, nor an “old testa- 
ment,” nor a “new testament;” and Abraham 
would not have been required to look forward to 
Christ’s future day. But John, who was less than 
the least one in the blessed kingdom, was greater 
than this faithful and elected subject of the new and 
blessed kingdom. Prophecy is not more effective 
than divine foreknowledge, yet even divine fore- 
knowledge does not make events necessary or cer- 
tain — so our standards hold. Therefore the contin- 
gency of human agency in Jesus’ humanity made 
all previous hope of a like contingent character, and 
this accounts for the preparatory and legal ages be- 
fore the divine incarnation and death. 

6. The unspiritual status of the disciples who at- 
tended the personal instruction of Jesus three years 
and six months shows clearly the lower status of the 
covenant and testament of their day. They then 
were under the testament of Moses, they lived up 
to it fully, they enjoyed all it could give; but they 
had not yet received the comfort of the Spirit, nor 
had they been endued with power from on high. 
And even after Christ’s resurrection, and at the time 
of his last interview with them, they had not received 
“the promise of the Father.” They had already re- 
ceived his instruction, his incarnation, his example, 


294 


Behold the Lamb of God! 

liis life, his death, his resurrection — everything ex- 
cept “ the promise,” the baptism of the Iloly Ghost ; 
for John had said: “lie shall baptize you with the 
Holy Ghost.” This is light — the kingdom of heav- 
en ; this is the perfecting grace— that which makes 
man inwardly holy. The patriarchs, from Abel to 
the last enduring servant of the legal system, died 
without this promise, “that they without us should 
not be perfect.” 

7. All readers have observed the rugged aspect of 
the character of the old religionists — the holy men of 
the ancient covenant — such as Moses’s bloody wars, 
Samuel hewing down his captive enemies, Joshua 
shutting the cave's mouth on the hidden and fugi- 
tive kings, and then ordering them out after the 
victory is complete and having them cut to pieces; 
and many other like things revolting to the Chris- 
tian sense when not understood in the light of this 
theory. But such conduct is a legitimate issue of a 
mere religion of law without the inward life of 
Christ. It is true that modern civilization leads 
men to a more humane course, but it must be re- 
membered that this very modern civilization is itself 
a product of the joint influence of the Mosaic econ- 
omy and the Christian Scriptures. There is now 
much of Christianity incorporated into governments 
and domestic life and social habits, traceable direct- 
ly to Christ or Moses, for which the Bible gets no 
credit by the unthinking masses. Noah’s drunken- 
ness unrebuked, Lot’s incest, and Jonah’s angry dis- 
pute with God’s angel are highly suggestive. 

8. That explanation of the difference between the 


A Summary View. 


295 


old and the new testaments, found in the phrases, 
“ Christ 1 ms now 00016,” “ lie is now seen,” “Atone- 
ment is now a historic fact,” “ We have more light,” 
and others like them, is simply no explanation at all. 
It is only a statement of facts, without any refer- 
ence to the philosophy of the facts. If Christ has 
now come, why? and what is the difference in the 
fact that he is now come in the flesh and the fact 
that “he has always been present in all his saving 
power?” If he is “now seen, wherein does such 
vision differ in its effects with what Abraham saw? 
Did Abraham not see him? What then does this 
seeing do that was not done before he could be seen 
in the flesh? How utterly impotent the old theory 
is to answer such questions? 

9 . This book is a natural inquiry into the mean- 
ing of passages of Scripture that cannot be satisfac- 
torily explained on any other theory than the one 
set out herein. John viii. 28 states distinctly that 
the Holy Ghost was not yet given, and assigns the 
reason — “Jesus was not yet glorified.” This gift of 
the Holy Ghost cannot refer to the gift of miracles, 
because that did always exist, especially in the chief 
prophetic epoch. It could not refer to convicting 
grace, for the law itself was spiritual in this respect ; 
it had been revealed by the Holy Spirit, and that for 
the purpose of convicting mankind of sin, “for by 
the law is a knowledge of sin,” and “ sin, taking oc- 
casion by the commandment, wrought in me all 
manner of concupiscence.” It was the holy baptism 
which John informed the public Jesus would bestow 
on the believer. Now, if in this sense the Holy 


296 


Behold the Lamb of God ! 


Spirit had not been given, we would inquire for the 
cause, and the answer is furnished in the text quot- 
ed — “ Jesus was not jet glorified.” The Word was 
always glorified, but the Word was not Jesus, the 
Son of Mary, till after the incarnation. The human 
in the Saviour was to die and be glorified in the res- 
urrection. This must occur before the Holy Ghost 
is given in holy baptism. The fact that he is called 
Holy Ghost only in the new testament signifies an 
enlarged function in his work. 

10. Temporal Israel was a type of spiritual Israel. 
The type and the thing typified could not exist at 
one and the same time. The slain Lamb and the 
slain Son of God are not of the same date or time; 
they represent different ages. As one is the type, 
the other is the thing typified. The lamb is the 
type of the Son; so the washings of the law are a 
type of the cleansing by the Holy Ghost. “ Not by 
works of righteousness which we have done [as in 
the type], but according to his mercy he saved 
us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of 
the Holy Ghost.” (Titus iii. 5 ) They cover dif- 
ferent ages and represent different dispensations. 
The blood of the first covenant was legally vicari- 
ous; it stood ceremoniall} 7 for or instead of the sin- 
ner’s guilt. Jesus’s blood is spiritually vicarious ; 
it provides a way for the Holy Ghost to cleanse us 
from impurity. The sinner under the law was nei- 
ther actually forgiven nor inwardly changed. “ The 
blood of bulls and of goats could not take away 
sins,” and yet the sinner was pronounced clean; the 
law so regarded him. Cut, as Hebrews ix. 15 says, 


A Summary View. 


297 


“And for this cause he is the mediator of the new 
testament, that by means of death, for the redemp- 
tion of the transgressions that were under the first 
testament, they which are called might receive the 
promise of eternal inheritance,” from this it is ev- 
ident that, although the vicarious lamb was ottered, 
it did not really take away or atone for transgres- 
sions. The statutes of Israel were satisfied; the law 
of the Church-state had been appeased, and thus far 
the lamb was realty vicarious, but, as respects God, 
the transgressions of that first testament were nev- 
er taken away till the death of Jesus occurred, un- 
der the new and better testament. This actual legal 
vicariousness of the lamb typified the effect that the 
death and resurrection of Christ would have on the 
believing Christian under the new testament, and so 
the legal vicariousness of the law finds an easy and 
beautiful solution of this most abstruse of all theo- 
logical questions in the new testament idea of in- 
ward purity, the work of the Holy Ghost through 
faith in Christ. Under the law the blood of the 
type was actually sprinkled on the sinner, but the 
blood of the antitype is not. The figurative fact of 
the law is lost in the actual fact of Jesus’ blood, but 
the figurative language of the law is brought up 
into the new testa'ment. The sprinkling of Jesus’ 
blood is only figurative. It was actually sprinkled on 
nothing but the cross, the spear, and the rocks at the 
foot of his cross. By faith in Jesus the Holy Ghost 
comes into our nature under the new testament, as 
is seen in Titus iii. 5, 6, and by actual impact purges 
and cleanses from all sin and depravity, making 


298 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


man pure; and this spiritual effect of Jesus’ blood 
is beautifully typified by the actual vicariousness of 
the law of sacrifices. But the question confronts us: 
“Is the atonement in Christ’s death not actually vi- 
carious? ” I answer: It is, and that in the highest 
and best possible form. Legal vicariousness is not 
the best or the highest form. Let me suppose that 
I have committed a heinous sin to-day. To-morrow 
I go to the temple, and present my lamb or dove to 
the priest. He slays it and sprinkles me with its 
blood, and this, together with some minor duties, 
constitutes me innocent and pare. That blood was 
literally vicarious. I am now legally pure, but am 
exactly the same thief, murderer, libertine, or slan- 
derer that I was the day before, so far as my dispo- 
sition or natural tastes or propensities are concerned. 
Now, if in Jesus’ death the same kind of vicarious- 
ness is found, then the sinner for whom Christ died 
is indeed forgiven, but is no purer or better than he 
was before, for his so-called purity is only a fiction 
of law, a ceremony. But if in the death and resur- 
rection of Jesus the Holy Ghost has been provided 
with such conditions as enables him to flow into our 
nature, cleansing and purifying by actual impact, 
just as water cleanses the flesh by contact, then do 
we find something eminently fit to be typified by 
the striking and otherwise inexplicable type of the 
slaughtered lamb and sprinkling of blood. And we 
find, moreover, how this view easily relieves the 
atonement from that harsh view with which skep- 
ticism has enshrouded it. And we further see how 
effectually it abolishes the idea of universal, uncon- 


A Summary View. 


299 


ditional salvation; and still further how it destroys 
the hope of the mere legalist and the moralist, and 
brings man to see and know that although “God so 
loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son ” 
to die, yet he requires that this Son should be believed 
on, in order to obtain spiritual life, or in order to se- 
cure the full vicariousness of the shed blood of the 
Son of God; for, after all, the final intent of all those 
huge and mysterious operations in the plan of God 
is to advance fallen man to the higher plane of a god- 
like spirituality. Therefore the vicarious quality in 
the blood of Jesus involves the law of spiritual ad- 
vancement and purity, and is not of that arbitrary 
cast that is found in the ancient type. Why the 
lamb and death in the law? Because it was in the 
divine plan that Christ would die. Why the death 
of Christ? Because it would glorify humanity and 
bring it within the law of the Spirit. The incarnated 
and now glorified Son is within the reach of faith, 
and faith is a conductor of divinity, as iron is of 
electricity. Faith in Christ is the nexus between 
man and God. The glorified or risen Christ was 
essential to the full operation of faith. 

11. Prospective faith in Christ is a misnomer. 
There was no Christ till Jesus came. lie is called 
Christ by no writer of the old testament. The new 
testament writers refer to him in the typical era as 
Christ, but that is because they now find that he 
who led ancient Israel as Jehovah has indeed be- 
come the Christ of the new testament, just as “the 
seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head ” 
was the gospel of that day. It was indeed the gos- 


300 


Behold the Lamb of God ! 


pel, blit 0 how dark! There was a prospective faith, 
but that faith could not touch the saving blood and 
resurrection, for these did not then exist. Nor did the 
Saviour’s blood act back in its sacrificial virtue; the 
dead nations waited for it as in the vision of the val- 
ley of dry bones in Ezekiel. This is not purgatory, 
for such waiting after death is not allowed under 
the second testament. No doubt a misconstruc- 
tion of the true theory has given rise to and sup- 
ports the very dangerous fallacy of the Romish pur- 
gatory. But when St. Peter tells us that after 
Christ’s dead body was quickened by the Spirit he 
went and preached to the spirits in prison, and in 
the next chapter that “the dead have the gospel 
preached to them,” one cannot well defend against 
some sort of future probation except by the theory 
of this book. Therefore I hold that the blood of 
Christ opened a way for the Spirit to act on and 
sanctify the millions who died in ignorance of duty 
before the advent of Jesus. And this is what Jesus 
meant when he said : “The hour is coming, and now 
is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of 
God: and they that hear shall live.” And this is 
why the dead came out of their graves and showed 
themselves unto many when Jesus was crucified. 

12. This theory accounts for the fact that there 
were no missionary movements in the Church be- 
fore Jesus came, and no effort was made to extend 
Zion’s borders, except by the military exploits of the 
kings of temporal Zion. To say that the building 
of synagogues by dispersed Jews was missionary 
work is mockery. It was no more so then than 


301 


A Summary View. 

now. It was business that carried the Jew abroad, 
and selfish religious pleasure and national pride that 
made him erect his synagogue. He urged no one 
to join, although he allowed proselytes if the stran- 
ger sought admittance. I read not of so much as a 
prayer-meeting in the old Bible, and not one reviv- 
al service, and there is absolutely no account of a 
single conversion in the new testament sense. Saul, 
the king, was for a time (one day perhaps) provided 
with a tender heart, and was among the prophets, 
but such phenomenon lacks all of the characteris- 
tics of a new testament conversion, and it is alone 
in all the history of the old testament. 

13. This theory brings me to the foot of the cross 
in profound gratitude to Jesus. He could have 
fallen and have left me in endless death as Adam fell, 
but he did not. It was man struggling against all 
the forces of sin and darkness — man apparently for- 
saken at times by the Father ; man, weak, trembling 
man, as I am; man, just as frail as I, sin excepted; 
man, poor, human, helpless man, conscious of the 
almighty issues involved, struggling for his fellow- 
man. And he was faithful till he cried: “It is fin- 
ished.” Then the contingency passed away, and 
the kingdom of heaven came. 

14. There is an idea blazing on the religious fir- 
mament like a planet, distinguished from all other 
ideas by the especial designation of “the promise.” 
After the crucifixion Jesus appeared in the assem- 
bly of the disciples, and “ commanded them that 
they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait 
for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye 


302 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


have heard of me/’ Just what this “ promise ” is 
seems clearly set forth in the verse following the 
one l have just quoted, at Acts i. 5: “For John 
truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized 
with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” The 
disciples still had but a crude conception of thcJ 
kingdom of God, and their observation of their 
Master brought to their minds the floating phan- 
tasm of the nation — a political kingdom headed by 
the Messiah — hence the question which immediate- 
ly followed: ‘‘Lord, wilt thou at this time restore 
again the kingdom to Israel?” To which the Lord 
made answer promptly: “ It is not for you to know 
the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put 
in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after 
that the Holy Ghost is come upon you : and ye shall 
he witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all 
Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part 
of the earth.” This was the last utterance of our 
Lord while in the form of man, for immediately u a 
cloud received him out of their sight.” Since the 
purifying of the nature by the Holy Ghost is the 
last act in the process of saving faith on earth, it 
seems appropriate that the bestowal of this grace 
should be the last words of the blessed Redeemer. 
But are we sure the “promise” is the Holy Ghost? 
“Not many days” from the date when Acts i. 5 was 
uttered Peter was standing amidst the thrilling 
scenes of Pentecost, where the displays of divine 
glory were dazzling the eyes of all Jerusalem, and 
said of the risen Christ : “ Therefore being by the 
right hand of God exalted, and having received of 


A Summary View . 


303 


the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath 
shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.” (Acts 
ii. 33.) Then Peter said unto them: “ Repent, and 
be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus 
Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive 
the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto 
you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, 
even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” Texts 
coupling the exercises of the Holy Ghost with the 
“promise” might be greatly multiplied, but the 
foregoing seems sufficient to fix the intent of the 
Scriptures beyond a doubt. Evidently the work of 
sanctification by the Holy Ghost is the reserved 
promise to be developed under the new testament, 
as the Epistle to the Hebrews cleacly states: “ For 
if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the asheg of 
a heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth, to the 
purifying of the flesh; how much more shall the 
blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit of- 
fered himself without spot to God, purge your con- 
science from dead works to serve the living God.” 
A ceremonial or legal cleansing, which was little 
more than typical, was consonant with the typical 
sacrifice and blood of beasts of the first testament, 
but this text teaches a contrast, both of the blood 
and the cleansing. Under the new testament the 
holy Sufferer should be of no less dignity than the 
Son of God himself, and well befitting such holy 
sacrifice would be the divine renewal or cleansing 
of human nature; for if the blood of beasts was suf- 
ficient to clothe the outward life with the beauty of 
holiness, how much more would a sacrifice of God’s 


304 


Behold the Lamb of God! 


holy Son suffice to renovate the inward man, and 
purge from the soul all its native depravity! And 
this heavenly estate was the object of prophecy and 
the burden of promise; it is the promise without 
which the gift of the Son of God himself were use- 
less. For it was to accomplish this very end that 
his life was given; it is the end and design of re- 
demption — human purification. Now, let us refer 
to 2 Corinthians i. Take the theory hereof in your 
mind, and read carefully and see how the apostle 
traces the grace of redemption through the dispen- 
sation of covenants and testaments, and find the 
full-orbed glory of the promise in the new testa- 
ment after the veil is taken from the heart. One 
was the glorious ministration of condemnation and 
death; the other the glorious ministration of life in 
Jesus Christ, the latter exceeding the glory of the 
former. This excess of glory is beautifully shown 
in the contrast between the epistle written in stone 
and that which is written in the heart by the Spirit 
of God. 


The End. 





















. 























0 



















































































» 






I 










• ; 
























. 






































































